ICCHS Genesis, Skinner. 1910

The International
Critical Commentary
On the Holy Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments
EDITORS' PREFACE
THERE written
are
by
now
British
before the public many Commentaries,
and American divines, of a popular
or homiletical character. The Cajnbridge Bible for
Schools, the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students,
The Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff),
The Expositor's Bible, and other similar series, have their
special place and importance. But they do not enter into the
field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of
Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum

A. T. ; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum
N. T. ; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar ; Keil and
Delitzsch's Commentar uber das A. T. ; Lange's
Biblischer
Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack's Handkommentar
zum A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar zum N. T. Several

of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged
and adapted, for the English-speaking public ; others are in
process of translation. But no corresponding series by British
or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has
been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, EUicott,
Kalisch, Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the
time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enter-
prise, when it is practicable to combine British and American

scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive
Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholarship,
and in a measure lead its van.
The International Critical Commentary
Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of New York, and Messrs.

T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series
of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, under th
editorship of Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., in America, and
of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., for the Old Testament, and
the Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., for the New Testament, in
Great Britain.
The Commentaries will be international and inter-confessional,
and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They
will be based upon a thorough critical study of the original texts
of the Bible, and upon critical methods of interpretation. They
are designed chiefly for students and clergymen, and will be
written in a compact style. Each book will be preceded by an
Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon it, and discuss-
ing impartially the questions still remaining open. The details
of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the

Commentary. Each section of the Text will be introduced
with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details
of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept
distinct from matter of a more general character ; and in the
Old Testament the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted with

Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books will be
dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, with critical
notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical

and Archaeological questions, as well as questions of Biblical
Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but
not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes will con-
stitute a uniform series.
GENESIS
JOHN SKINNER, D.D.
The International Critical Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

COMMENTARY
ON
OF
GENESIS /^ -^^'''
JUN23I910
.&Ckl StW'
BY
JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Hon. M.A.(Cantab.)

PRIKCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE,
WESTMINSTER COLLEGB, CAMBRIDGB
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1910
TO
MY WIFE
PREFACE.
It is a little was entrusted by the

over six years since I
Commentary" with
Editors of **The International Critical
the preparation of the volume on Genesis. During that
time there has been no important addition to the number
of commentaries either in English or in German. The
English reader still finds his best guidance in Spurrell's
valuable Notes on the text, Bennett's compressed but sug-
gestive exposition in the Century Bible^ and Driver's
thorough and masterly work in the first volume of the
Westminster Commentaries all of which were in existence
\
when I commenced my While no one of these books

task.
will be superseded by the present publication, there was
still room for a commentary on the more elaborate scale of
the International " series; and it has been my aim, in
**
accordance with the programme of that series, to supply

the fuller treatment of critical, exegetical, literary, and
archaeological questions, which the present state of scholar-
ship demands.
The most recent German commentaries, those of
Holzinger and Gunkel, had both appeared before 1904;
and I need not say that to both, but especially to the latter,
I have been greatly indebted. Every student must have
felt that Gunkel's work, with its aesthetic appreciation of
the genius of the narratives, itswider historical horizons,
and its illuminating use of mythological and folklore
parallels, has breathed a new
spirit into the investigation
of Genesis_, whose influence no writer on the subject can
hope or wish to escape. The last-mentioned feature is
VIII PREFACE
considerably emphasised in the third edition, the first part

of which (1909) was published just too late to be utilised
for this volume. That I have not neglected the older
standard commentaries of Tuch, Delitzsch, and Dillmann,
or less comprehensive expositions like that of Strack, will
be apparent from the frequent acknowledgments in the
notes. The same remark applies to many books of a more
general kind (mostly cited in the list of '* Abbreviations '*),
which have helped to elucidate special points of exegesis.

The problems which invest the interpretation of Genesis
are, indeed, too varied and far-reaching to be satisfactorily
treated within the compass of a single volume. The old
controversies as to the compatibility of the earlier chapters
with the conclusions of modern science are no longer, to
my mind, a living issue ; and I have not thought it neces-
sary to occupy much space with their discussion. Those
who are of a different opinion may be referred to the pages
of Dr. Driver, where they will find these matters handled
with convincing force and clearness. Rather more atten-
tion has been given to the recent reaction against the
critical analysis of the Pentateuch, although I am very far
from thinking that that movement, either in its conservative
or its more radical manifestation, is likely to undo the
scholarly work of the last hundred and fifty years. At all
events, my own belief in the essential soundness of the
prevalent hypothesis has been confirmed by the renewed
examination of the text of Genesis which my present under-
taking required. It will probably appear to some that the
analysis pushed further than is warranted, and that dupli-
is
cates where common sense would have

are discovered
suggested an easy reconciliation. That is a perfectly fair
line of criticism, provided the whole problem be kept in
view. It has to be remembered that the analytic process
is a chain which is a good deal stronger than its weakest
link, that it starts from cases where diversity of authorship
is almost incontrovertible, and moves on to others where
it is less certain ; and it is surely evident that when the

composition of sources is once established, the slightest
—
PREFACE IX
differences of representation or language assume a signifi-

cance which they might not have apart from that presumption.
That the analysis is frequently tentative and precarious is
fully acknowledged and the danger of basing conclusions
;
on insufficient data of this kind, is one that I have sought to

avoid. On the more momentous question of the historical
or legendary character of the book, or the relation of the
one element to the other, opinion is likely to be divided
for some time to come. Several competent Assyriologists
appear to cherish the conviction that we are on the eve of
fresh discoveries which will vindicate the accuracy of at
least the patriarchal traditions in a way that will cause the
utmost astonishment to some who pay too little heed to the
findings of archaeological experts. It is naturally difficult to
estimate the worth of such an anticipation ; and it is advis-
able to keep an open mind. Yet even here it is possible to
adopt a position which will not be readily undermined.
Whatever triumphs may be in store for the archaeologist,
though he should prove that Noah and Abraham and Jacob
and Joseph are all real historical personages, he will hardly —
succeed in dispelling the atmosphere of mythical imagina-
tion, of legend, of poetic idealisation, which are the life and
soul of the narratives of Genesis. It will still be neces-
sary, if we are to retain our faith in the inspiration of this
part of Scripture, to recognise that the Divine Spirit has
enshrined a part of His Revelation to men in such forms as
these. It is only by a frank acceptance of this truth that
the Book of Genesis can be made a means of religious
edification to the educatedmind of our age.
As regards the form of the commentary, I have en-
deavoured to include in the large print enough to enable the
reader to pick up rapidly the general sense of a passage ;
although the exigencies of space have compelled me to

employ small type to a much larger extent than was
ideally desirable. In the arrangement of footnotes I have
reverted to the plan adopted in the earliest volume of the
series (Driver's Deuteronomy)^ by putting all the textual,
grammatical, and philological material bearing on a parti-
X PREFACE
cular verse in consecutive notes running- concurrently with

the main text. It is possible that in some cases a slight
embarrassment may result from the presence of a double set

of footnotes ; but I think that this disadvantage will be
more than compensated to the reader by the convenience of
having the whole explanation of a verse under his eye at one
place, instead of having to perform the difficult operation of
keeping two or three pages open at once.
In conclusion, I have to express my thanks, first of all,
to two friends by whose generous assistance my labour has
been considerably lightened to Miss E. I. M. Boyd, M.A.,
:
who has rendered me the greatest service in collecting

material from books, and to the Rev. J. G. Morton, M.A.,
who has corrected the proofs, verified all the scriptural
references, and compiled the Index. My last word of all
must be an acknowledgment of profound and grateful
obligation to Dr. Driver, the English Editor of the series,
for his unfailing interest and encouragement during the
progress of the work, and for numerous criticismsand
suggestions, especially on points of philology and archae-
ology, to which in nearly every instance I have been able to
give effect.
JOHN SKINNER.
Cambridge,
April 1910.
— ' 1
CONTENTS.
List of Abbreviations
Introduction
.•••••
.....••
PAGES
XIII-XX
i-lxvii
§ I. Introductory
general Scope
A.
:
— and Title
Nature of the Tradition.

....
Canonical Position of the Book— its
History or Legend?
§ 2.
...... . . . • •
§ 3. Myth and Legend—Foreign Myths— Types of mythical

Motive vui
§ 4. Historical Value of the Tradition . , . xiii
§ 5. Preservation and Collection of the Traditions . . xxviii
B. Structure and Composition of the Book.
§ 6. Plan and Divisions . . • xxxn

§ 7. The Soicrces of Genesis . . • xxxiv
§ 8. The collective Authorship off and E xliii
....
.
§ 9. Characteristics of J and E— their Relation to iterary

Prophecy xlvii
§ 10. Date and Place of Origin Redaction offE — lii
§ II. The Priestly Code and the Final Redaction Ivii
Commentary . . . . • 1-540
Extended Notes :
The Divine Image in Man . . . 31

The Hebrew and Babylonian Sabbath 38
....
.
Babylonian and other Cosmogonies • 41-50

The Site of Eden 62-66
The Protevangelium
*
The Cherubim ....

Origin and Significance of the Paradise Legend
. . . 80
89
90-97
Origin of the Cain Legend . iii-iiS
The Cainite Genealogy . . • 122-124
The Chronology of Ch. 5, etc. • • 134-139
The Deluge Tradition . . • 174-18
Noah's Curse and Blessing . • • 185-187
The Babel Legend . . • • 228-231
XII CONTENTS
PAGES
Chronolog-y of 1
1^'^* . . •
Historic Value of Ch. 14 , • 271-276

Circumcision . , , • 296
The Covenant-Idea in P .
297
Destruction of the Cities of the Plain 310
The Sacrifice of Isaac 331
The Treaty of Gilead and its historical Sett "g: 402
The Legend of Peniel 411
The Sack of Shechem . 421
The Edomite Genealogies . . 436
The Degradation of Reuben ,
The Fate of Simeon and Levi .
The " Shiloh " Prophecy of 49I*' 521-524

The Zodiacal Theory of the Twelve Tribes 534
Index — I. English . • • < 541-548

II. Hebrew • • • < 548-551
ABBREVIATIONS.
I. SOURCES (see pp. xxxivff.), TEXTS, AND VERSIONS.

E
J. .
JE .
PorPC
RE^
RJ .
RP j
RJE .
RJEP .
EV[V].
Jub. .
MT .
OT .
Aq. .
e.
s.
Gr.-Ven.
S^
ffiA.B
XIV ABBREVIATIONS
2. COMMENTARIES.
Ayles • • • H. H. B. Ayles, A critical Commentary on Genesis
a. 2^ (1904).
/f-iii.
Ba[ll] . . . C. J. Ball, The Bool of Genesis: Critical Edition of

the Hebrew Text printed in colours . . . with
Notes ( 1 896). SeeSBOT.
Ben[nett] . . W. H. Bennett, Genesis (Century Bible).
Calv[in] . . Mosis Lihri V cum Joh. Calvini Commentariis.
Genesis seorsum, etc. (1563).
De[litzsch] . . F. Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar ilher die Genesis
(5th ed. 1887).
Di[llmann] . . Die Genesis. Von der dritten Auflage an erhldrt
von A. Dillmann (6th ed. 1892). The work
embodies frequent extracts from earlier edns. by
Knobel these are referred to below as " Kn.-Di."
:
Dr[iver] • . The Book of Genesis with Introduction and NoteSy

by S. R. Driver (7th ed. 1909).
Gu[nkel] . . Genesis ilbersetst und erkldrt, von H. Gunkel (2nd
ed. 1902).
Ho[lzinger]. . Genesis erkldrt, von H. Holzinger (1898).
lEz. . . . Abraham Ibn Ezra (t c. 1167).
Jer[ome], Qu, . Jerome (t 420), Qucestiones sive Traditiones hehraicce
in Gefiesim,
Kn[obel] . . A. Knobel.
Kn.-Di. . . See Di[llmann].
Ra[shi] . . Rabbi Shelomoh Yizhaki (f 1105).
Spurrell . . G. J. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of the Book of
Genesis (2nd ed. 1896),
Str[ack] . . Die Genesis iibersetzt und ausgelegt, von H. L.
Strack (2nd ed. 1905).
Tu[ch] . . Fr. Tuch, Commentar iiber die Genesis {2n6. &d.. 1871).
3. WORKS OF REFERENCE AND GENERAL LITERATURE.

Barth, ES . .
J. Barth, Etymologische Studien zum sem. insbe-
sondere zum hebr. Lexicon (1893).
,, NB , . Die Notninalbildung in den sem. Sprachen {\%%<^(^\).
Barton, SO . . G. A. Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins (igoz).
B.-D. . . . S. Baer and F. Delitzsch, Liber Genesis (1869).
The Massoretic Text, wîth Appendices.
BDB . . . F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Brig-gs, A
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT (1891- ),
Benz[inger], -(4rc/z.- I. Benzinger, Hebrdische Archdologie (2nd ed. 1907).

Ber. R. . . The Midrash Bereshith Rabba (tr. into German by
A. Wiinsche, i88i).
Bochart, Hieros. . S. Bochartus, Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de
animalibus Sacrce Scriptures (ed. Rosenmiiller,
i 793-96).
, : ;
ABBREVIATIONS XV
Bu[dde], Urg. , K. Budde, Die hiblische Urgeschichte (1883).
Buhl, GP . . Fr. Buhl, Geographic des alien Palaestina (1896).
,
Geschichte der Edomiter ( 1 893).
Burck[hardt] . Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahdhys.
,, Travels in Syria and the Holy Land.
Che[yne], TB\_A'\I T. K. Cheyne, Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient
Israel (1907).
CIS . . . Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (1881- ).
Cook, Gl. . . S. A. Cook, A Glossary of the Aramaic Inscriptions
(1898).
Cooke, NSI . G. A. Cooke, A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscrip-
tions (1903).
Co[rnill], £inl. . C. H. Cornill, Einleitungin das /1 7" (see p. xl, note).
,, Hist. . History of the People of Israel [Tr. 1898).
Curtiss, PSP . S.l.Cnriiss, Primitive Semitic Religion to-day {1^2).
Dav[idson] . . A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax.
, , O TTh . The Theology oftheOT{\ 904).
DB . . .A Dictio7iary of the Bible, ed. by J. Hastings
(1898- 1 902).
Del[itzsch], Hwb . Friedrich Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handworterbuch
(1896).
„ Par.. Wo lag das Paradies ? Eine biblisch-assyriologische
Studie (1881).
„ Prol, . Prolegomena eines neuen hebrdisch - aramdischen
Worterbuchs zum A T (1886).
„ See BA below.
Doughty, AD . C. M. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta (1888).
Dri[ver], LOT . S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of
the OT (Revised ed. 191 o).
,, Sam. . Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel
(1890).
,, T, , A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew (3rd
ed. 1892).
EB . • . Encyclopcedia Biblica, ed. by T. K. Cheyne and
J. Sutherland Black (1899-1903).
EBL . . .See Hilprecht.
Ee[rdmans] . B. D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien
i. Die Kom-Position der Genesis.
ii. Die Vorgeschichte Israels.

Erman, LAE . Ad. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt (tr. by H. M.
Tirard, 1894).
,, Hdbk. . A Handbook of Egyptian Religion (tr. by A. S.
Griffith, 1907).
Ew[ald], Gr. , H. Ewald, Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch der hebrdischen
Sprache des alien Bundes (8th ed. 1870).
„ HI . History of Israel [Eng. tr. 1871].
„ Ant. . Antiquities of Israel [Eng. tr. 1876].
Field . . . F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quce supersunt
sive Veterum Interpretum Grcecorum in totum
V.T. Fragmenta (1875).
XVI ABBREVIATIONS
Frazer, AAO J. G. Frazer, Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in the

history of Oriental Religion (1906).
„ GB The Golden Bough ; a Study in Magic and Religion
(2nd ed. 1900).
>» Folklore in the OT (igoy).
V. Gall, est. A. Freiherr von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstdtten
(1898).
G.-B. . Gesenius' Hehrdisches und aramdisches Handwb'rter-
buch iiber das ^7" (14th ed. by Buhl, 1905).
Geiger, UrscJir, . A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uehersetzungen der Bihel
in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von derinnem Entwickelung
des Judenthums (1857).
Ges[enius], Th. . W. Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguce
HebrcBcB et ChaldcecB V.T. (1829-58).
G.-K. . Gesenius' Hebrdische Grammatik^ vollig" umgear-
beitet von E. Kautzsch (26th ed. 1896) [Eng.
tr. 1898].
Glaser, Skizze . E. Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographic
Arabiens, ii. (1890).
Gordon, ETG . A. R. Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis {\go'j).
Gray, HPN G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Natnes (1896).
Gu[nkel], ScJiopf. H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und
Endzeit (1895).
Guthe, GI . H. Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1899).
Harrison, Prol. . Jane E. Harrison, Prolegotnena to the study of Greek
Religion (2nd ed. 1908).
Hilprecht, EBL . H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands during
the igth cent, [with the co-operation of Ben-
zing-er, Hommel, Jensen, and Steindorff] (1903).
Ho[lzing-er], Etnl. H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch (1893).
or Hex.
Hom[mel], AA . F. Hommel, Aufsdtze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-
sentitologischen Inhalts (i-iii, 1892- ).
„ Affr. The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the

Monutnents (1897).
„ Aon. Die altorientalischen Denkmdler und das AT {\^2).
„ Gesch. Geschichte Babyloniens und Assynens {188^).
SAChrest.
,, Siid-arabische Chrestomathie (1893).
Hnpfleld], Qu. . H. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art
ihrer Zusammensetzung (1853).
Jastrow, I^BA . M. Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria
(1898).
/E . . . The fewish Encyclopcedia.
Je[remias],^rZ<92 A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients (2nd ed, 1906).
Jen[sen], Kosm. . P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (1890).
KAT^ . Die Keilinschriften und das AT, by Schrader (2nd
ed. 1883).
KAT^, Die Keilinschriften und das AT. Third ed., by
Zimmern and Winckler (1902).
,
ABBREVIATIONS XVII
Kent, SOT . , C. F. Kent, Narratives of the Beginnings of Hebrew

History [Students* Old Testament] (1904).
KIB . . . Keilinschriftliche Biblioiheky ed. by Eb. Schrader
(1889- ).
Kit[tel], BH . R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica (Genesis) (1905).

,, GH , Geschichte der Hebrder ( J 888-g2).
K6n[ig-], Lgb. . F. E. Konig-, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebdude der

hebrdischen Sprache (2 vols., 1881-95).
}) S , . Historisch - co?nparative Syntax der hebr. Sprache
(1897).
KS . . . E. Kautzsch and A. Socin, Die Genesis tnit aOsserer
Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften.
Kue[nen], G^j. -<4dA. A. Kuenen, Gesammelte Abhandlungen (see p. xl,
note\
,, Ond. . Historisch-critisch Onderzoek . (see p. xl, note). . .
Lag"[arde], Ank. . P. A. de Lagarde, Ankiindigung einer neuen

Ausgabe der griech. Uebersezung des A T (1882).
), Ges. Abh. . Gesa7nnielte Abhandlungen {1866).
„ Mitth. . Mittheilungen^ i-iv (1884-91).
,, . . Orientalia, i, 2 (1879-80).
„ Sem. . . Semiticay i, 2 (1878).
„ Symm. . Symmicta, 2 pts. (1877-80).
,, OS . . Ononiastica Sacra (1870).
Lane, Lex. . , E. W. Lane, An Arabic-Efiglish Lexicon (1863-93).
,, ME . .An Account of the Manners and Customs of the
Modern Egyptians (5th ed. i860).
Len[ormant], Or. F. Lenormant, Les Origines de Thistoire^ (i-iii,
1880-84).
Levy, Ch. Wb. . J. Levy, Chalddisches Worterbuch Uber die Targumim
. . . (3rd ed. 1881).
Lidz[barski], Hb. M. Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epi-
or NSEpigr. . graphik (1898).
Lu[ther], INS , See Meyer, INS.
Marquart . , J. Marquart, Fundamente israel. undjild. Geschichte
(1896).
Meyer, Entst. . E.. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums {i8g6).
„ GA^ . Geschichte des Alterthums (Bd. i. 1884).

,, GA^ . ,, ,, ,, (2nd ed. 1909).
,, INS , Die Israeliten und
Nachbarstdmme, von E.
ihre
Meyer, mit Beitrag-en von B. Luther (1906).
Miiller, AE . . W. Max Muller, Asien und Europa nach altdgypt-
ischen Denkmdlern (1893).
Nestle, MM , E. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien (1893).
N6[ldeke], Bsitr. Th. Noldeke, Beitrdge zur semitischen Sprach-
wissenschaft (1904).
, Unters. Untersuch ungen zur Kritik des AT {i 869).
OH . . Oxford Hexateuch = Carpenter and Harford-
Battersby, The Hexateuch (see p. xl, note).
Oehler, ATTh G. F. Oehler, Theologie des {yd ed. 1891). AT
Ols. .
J. Olshausen.
.
XVIII ABBREVIATIONS
Orr, POT . J.Orr, The Problem of the OT {igo6).

OS , . . See Lagarde.
P[ayne] Sm[ith], R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus (1879, 1901).
Thes,
Petrie . W. Flinders Petrie, A History 0/ Egypt.
Pro[cksch] . O. Procksch, Das nordhehrdische Sagenbuch: die
Elohimquelle (1906).
Riehm, Hdwb. E. C. A. Riehm, Handworterbuch des biblischen
Altertums (2nd ed. 1893-94).
Robinson, BR E. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine (2nd
ed., 3 vols., 1856).
Sayce, EHH . A. H. Sayce, The Early History of the Hebrews
(1897).
„ HCM . The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monu-
ments (2nd ed. 1894).
SBOT. The Sacred Books of the OT, a cnt. ed. of the Heb.
Text printed in Colours., under the editorial direc-
tion of P. Haupt.
Schenkel, BL D. Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon (1869-75).
Schr[2idQrl KGF Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriften und Geschichts-
forschung (1878).
See KA T and KIB above.
Schultz, OTTh H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology (Eng. tr. 1892).
Schiirer, GJV E. Schiirer, Geschichte des jildischen Volkes im
Zeitalter Jesu Chrisii (3rd and 4th ed. 1898-
1901).
Schw[ally] . Fr. Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode (1892).
Semitische Kriegsaltertumer, i. (1901).
Smend, ATRG . R. Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religions-
geschichte (2nd ed. 1899).
GASm[ith], HG . G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land
(1895).
Rob. Smith, KM^ W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in
Early Arabia (2nd ed. 1903).
,, OTJC^ The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (2nd ed.
1892).
,, x-r. The Prophets of Israel (2nd ed. 1895).
Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (2nd ed. 1894).
Spiegelberg W. Spiegelberg, Aegyptologische Randglossen zum
^^(1904).
Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte der
aeg. Monumente (3rd ed. 1904).
Sta[de] B. Stade, Ausgewdhlte akademische Reden und
Abhandhingen (1899).
„ BTh Biblische Theologie des AT, i. (1905).
„ GVI Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1887-89).
Steuern[agel], C. Steuernagel, Die Einw an der ung der israelitischen
Einw. . Stdmm,e in Kanaan (1901).
TA . Tel-Amarna Tablets {KIB, v ; Knudtzon, Die eU
Amarna Tafeln (1908- )].
ABBREVIATIONS XIX
Thomson, LB • W. M. Thomson, The Land and the Book (3 vols.

1881-86).
Tide, Gesch. , C. P. Tiele, Geschichte der Religion im Altertum,
i. (German ed. 1896).
Tristram, NHB . H. B. Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible

(9th ed. 1898).
We[llhausen], Comp.^ J.Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und
der historischen Bilcher des AT
{2nd ed. 1889).
„ De gent. De gentibus et familiis Judceis quce i Chr. 2. ^
enumerantur (1870).
„ Heid. . Reste arabischen Heidentums (2nd ed. 1897).
„ Prol.^ . Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (6th ed. 1905).
,, . . Skizzen und Vorarbeiten.
,, TBS. Der Text der Biicher Samuelis [iSî).
VJ\\x\ck\er\AOF. H.Wmckler, Altorientalische Forschungen {iSg^- ).
„ ATU . Alttestarnentliche Untersuchungen (1892).
„ GBA . Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens (1892).
„ GI . Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen {\. n. iSg^y ,
1900).
„ See KA T^ above.
Zunz, GdV . Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Jtiden
(2nd ed. 1892).
4. PERIODICALS, ETC.
AJSL , American Journal of Semitic Languages and Litera-

tures (continuing" Hebraica).
AJTh . American Journal of Theology (1897- )•
ARW. A rchiv fiir Religionswissensch aft.

BA . Beitrdge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprach-
"wissenschaft, herausgegeben von F. Delitzsch und
P. Haupt (1890- ).
BS . Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review (1844- ).
Deutsche Litteraturzeitung {\2>ô- ).
Exp. . The Expositor.

ET . The Expository Times.
GGA . Gottifigische gelehrte Anzeigen (1753- ).
GGN . Nachrichten der konigl. Gesellschaft der Wissen-

schaften zu Gottingen.
Hebr. . Hebraica ( 1 884- 95). See AJSL.
JBBW [Ewald's] Jahrbiicher der biblischen Wissenschaft
(1849-1865).
JiS]BL Journal of [the Society of] Biblical Literature and
Exegesis (1881- ).
JPh . The Journal of Philology (1872- ).
JQR ' The Jewish Qtiarterly Review.
JRAS . Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain
and Irela7id (1834- ).
XX ABBREVIATIONS
JTS • • • The Journal of Theological Studies {\ôo- ).
Lit\erarisches\ Zentralhl\att fiir Deutschland]

(1850- ).
M[B'\BA . . Monatsherichte der konigl. preuss. Akadainie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Continued in Sitzungs-
berichte der k. p. Ak. (1881- ). . . .
MVAG • . Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft

(1896- ).
NKZ . . . Neue kirchliche Zeiischrift (1890- ).

OLz . . . Orient alische Litteraturzeitung (1898- ).
PA OS. . . Proceedings [Journal] of the American Oriental
Society (1851- ).
PEFS . • • Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements. :
PSBA . • . Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology

(1878- ).
SBBA , . .See MBBA
above.
SK . . . Theologische Studien und Kritiken {\%2^- ).
ThLz . • . Theologische Litteraturzeitung {\S']6- ).
ThT , , . Theologisch Tijdschrift {i86-j- ).
TSBA . , . Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archceology.

ZA . . . Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie {\S?>6- ).
ZATW , . Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

(188 1- ).
ZDMG , . Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesell-

schaft845- ).
( 1
ZDPV , . Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins {i8'j8- ).
ZJ^F
ZVP ...
. . . Zeitschrift fiir Jêilschriftsforschu7ig {188^-85).
Zeitschrift fiir Volkerpsychologie
schaft (i86o- ).
und Sprachwissen-
OTHER SIGNS AND CONTRACTIONS.

NH . * New Hebrew the language of the Mishnah,
' :
Midrashim, and parts of the Talmud.

v.i. , vide infra \ Used in references from commentary
v.s. . vide supra J to footnotes, and vice versd.
« Frequently used to indicate that a section is of
,
composite authorship.
. After OT references means that all occurrences of
the word or usage in question are cited.
, Root or stem.
• Sign of abbreviation in Heb. words.
. =
'\ry\y\ = and so on : used when a Heb. citation
' '
is incomplete.
a
INTRODUCTION.
§ r . Introductory : Canonical position of the hook — its general

scope — a7id title.
The Book of Genesis (on the title see at the end of this §)
forms the opening- section of a comprehensive historical
work which, in the Hebrew Bible, extends from the creation
of the world to the middle of the Babylonian Exile (2 Ki. 25^").
The tripartite division of the Jewish Canon has severed the
later portion of this work (Jos. -Kings), under the title of
the ** Former Prophets" (D''J"iK^N"in D"'X^nDn), from the earlier
portion (Gen.-Deut.), which constitutes the Law (minn), —
seemingly artificial bisection which results from the Torah
having" attained authority soon after
canonical its com-
and Nehemiah, while the canonicity

pletion in the time of Ezra
of the Prophetical scriptures was not recognised till some
centuries later. "^ How soon the division of the Torah into
its five books (niinn ^K'în nt^'on the five fifths of the :
'
Law ') was introduced we do not know for certain but it is ;
undoubtedly ancient, and in all probability is due to the final

redactors of the Pent.f In the case of Genesis, at all events,
* See Ryle, Canon of the OT, chs. iv. v. ; Wildeboer, Origin of the
Canon of the OT^, 27 ff., loi ff. ; Buhl, Kanon und Text des AT, 8 f. .
Budde, art. Canon,' in EB^ and Woods, OT Canon,' in DB.

' *
t Kuenen, Onderzoek, i. pp. 7, 331. The earliest external evidence

of the fivefold division is Philo, De Abrah., init. {HCjv iepQv vd/xcov iv jrivre
/3i;3Xots dvaypaêvTUiVy i] irpwrrj KoXeiTai Kal iiriypdcpeTai Tiveais, dvb rrjs tov
Kdafiov yepâeus, dpxv irepiix^'-i ^â/SoOcra rrju irpScrprjcriv Kalroi kt\.) ;
fiv iv
Jos. c. Ap. i. 39. It is found, however, in ux and ffi, and seems to
have served as a model for the similar division of the Psalter. That it
11 INTRODUCTION
the division is Four centuries of

obviously appropriate.
complete silence between its close and the beginning of
lie
Exodus, where we enter on the history of a nation as con-

trasted with that of a family and its prevailing character
;
of individual biography suggests that its traditions are of

a different quality, and have a different origin, from the
national traditions preserved in Exodus and the succeeding
books. Be that as it may. Genesis is a unique and well-
rounded whole; and there is no book of the Pent., except
Deut., which so readily lends itself to monographic treatment.
Genesis may thus be described as the Book of Hebrew
Origins. It is a peculiarity of the Pent, that it is Law-book
and history in one : while its main purpose is legislative, the
laws are set in a framework of narrative, and so, as it were,
are woven into the texture of the nation's life. Genesis
contains a minimum of legislation ; but its narrative is the
indispensable prelude to that account of Israel's formative
period in which the fundamental institutions of the theocracy
are embedded. It is a collection of traditions regarding the
immediate ancestors of the Hebrew nation (chs. 12-50),

showing how they were gradually isolated from other nations
and became a separate people and at the same time how ;
they were related to those tribes and races most nearly con-
nected with them. But this is preceded (in chs. i-ii) by an
account of the origin of the world, the beginnings of human
history and civilisation, and the distribution of the various
races of mankind. The whole thus converges steadily on
the line of descent from which Israel sprang, and which
determined its providential position among the nations of
the world. It is significant, as already observed, that the
narrative stops short just at the point where family history
ceases with the death of Joseph, to give place after a long
interval to the history of the nation.
The
Title. —
The name Genesis comes to us through the Vulg. from
* '
the LXX, where the usual superscription is simply Vh€<ji% (ffi^M. most curs.)^
rarely -^hâiz (ffic^^), a contraction of Vhecii kIxtixov (fflc^'"').
r? An
follows natural lines of cleavagfe is shown by Kuenen {II. cc.) and there
;
is no reason to doubt that it is as old as the canonisation of the T6rah.

INTRODUCTION m
—
interesting variation in one curs. (129) ^ /Sf^Xos tQv yev4a-e(av (cf. 2* 5')*
—might tempt one to fancy that the scribe had in view the series of
TdlMoth (see p. xxxiv), and regarded the book as the book of origins in
the wide sense expressed above. But there is no doubt that the current
Greek derived from the opening theme of the book, the creation
title is
—
of the world. t So also in Syriac {sephra dahritha), Theod. Mopsu.
[y] KTiais), and occasionally among the Rabb. {nyî- nso). The common —
Jewish designation is n's^•^nD, after the first word of the book (Origen, in
Euseb. HE, vi. 25 ; Jerome, Prol. gal., and Qucest. in Gen.) ; less usual is
psj'Nn e'Din, 'the first fifth.' — Only a curious interest attaches to the
unofficial appellation nty'.n nsjD (based on 2 Sa. i ^^) or DnB^n '0 (the
patriarchs) see Carpzov, Introd. p. 55 ; Delitzsch, 10.
A, Nature of the Tradition.
§ 2. History or Legend?
The first question that arises with reg-ard to these

* origins whether they are in the main of the nature
'
is
of history or of leg-end, —
whether (to use the expressive
German terms) they are Geschichte^ things that happened,
or Sage^ things said. There are certain broad differences
between these two kinds of narrative which may assist us to
determine to which class the traditions of Genesis belong.
History in the technical sense is an authentic record of
actual events based on documents contemporary, or nearly
contemporary, with the facts narrated. It concerns itself
with and of public interest, with the actions
affairs of state —
of kings and statesmen, civil and foreign wars, national
disasters and successes, and such like. If it deals with con-
temporary incidents, it consciously aims at transmitting to
posterity as accurate a reflexion as possible of the real course
of events, in their causal sequence, and their relations to
time and place. a distance from the events, it
If written at
seeks to recover from contemporary authorities an exact
knowledge of these circumstances, and of the character and
motives of the leading personages of the action. That the —
Israelites, from a very early period, knew how to write
* Cambridge Septuagini, p. i.
t See the quotation from Philo on p. i above ; and cf. Pseud>
Athanasius De s vnop. script, sac. 5.
IV INTRODUCTION
history in this sense, we see from the story of David's court

in 2 Sa. and the beginning of i Kings. There we have a
graphic and circumstantial narrative of the struggles for the
succession to the throne, free from bias or exaggeration,
and told with a convincing realism which conveys the
impression of first-hand information derived from the evidence
of eye-witnesses. As a specimen of pure historical literature
(as distinguished from mere annals or chronicles) there is
nothing equal to it in antiquity, till we come down to the
works of Herodotus and Thucydides in Greece.
Quite different from historical writing of this kind Is
the Volkssage, —the

mass of popular narrative talk about
the past, which exists in more or less profusion amongst
all races in the world. Every nation, as it emerges Into
historical consciousness, finds itself In possession of a store
of traditional material of this kind, either circulating among
the common people, or woven by poets and singers Into a
picture of a legendary heroic age. Such legends, though they
survive the dawn
of authentic history, belong essentially to a
pre-literaryand uncritical stage of society, when the popular
Imagination works freely on dim reminiscences of the great
events and personalities of the past, producing an amalgam
in which tradition and phantasy are Inseparably mingled.
Ultimately they are themselves reduced to writing, and give
rise to a species of literature which Is frequently mistaken
for history, but whose true character will usually disclose
itself to a patient and sympathetic examination. While
legend is not history, it has In some respects a value greater
than history. For it reveals the soul of a people, its in-
stinctive selection of the types of character which represent

its moral aspirations, its conception of its own place and
mission in the world ; some indeterminate extent,
and also, to
the Impact on Its inner life of the momentous historic experi-
ences in which it first woke up to the consciousness of a
national existence and destiny.*
* Comp. Gordon, Early Traditions, 84: "A? a, real expression of the

living' spirit of the nation, a people's myths are the mirror of its religious
and moral ideals, aspirations, and iraag-inations."
INTRODUCTION V
In raising the question to which department of literature
the narratives of Genesis are to be referred, we approach a
subject beset by difficulty, but one which cannot be avoided.
We are not entitled to assume a priori that Israel is an
exception to the general rule that a legendary age forms the
ideal background of history : whether it be so or not must
be determined on the evidence of its records. Should it
prove to be no exception, we shall not assign to its legends

a lower significance as an expression of the national spirit
than to the heroic legends of the Greek or Teutonic races. It
is no question of the truth or religious value of the book that
we are called to discuss, but only of the kind of truth and the
particular mode of revelation which we are to find in it. One
of the strangest theological prepossessions is that which
identifies revealed truth with matter-of-fact accuracy either in
science or in history. Legend is after all a species of poetry,
and it is hard to see why a revelation which has freely availed

itself of so many other kinds of poetry — fable, allegory,
parable — should disdain that form of it which is the most
influential of all in the life of a primitive people. As a
vehicle of religious ideas, poetic narrative possesses obvious
advantages over literal history ; and the spirit of religion,
deeply implanted in the heart of a people, will so permeate
and fashion its legendary lore as to make it a plastic ex-
pression of the imperishable truths which have come to it
through its experience of God.
The legendary aspect of the Genesis traditions appears in such

characteristics as these The narratives are the literary deposit
: (i)
of an oral tradition which, if it rests on any substratum of historic
fact, must have been carried down through many centuries. Few will
seriously maintain that the patriarchs prepared written memoranda for
the information of their descendants ; and the narrators nowhere profess
their indebtedness to such records. Hebrew historians freely refer to
written authorities where they used them (Kings, Chronicles) but no ;
instance of this practice occurs in Genesis. Now oral tradition is the

natural vehicle of popular legend, as writing- is of history. And all
experience shows that apart from written records there is no exact
knowledge of a remote past. Making every allowance for the superior
retentiveness of the Oriental memory, it is still impossible to suppose
that an accurate recollection of bygone incidents should have survived
twenty generations or more of oral transmission. Noldeke, indeed, has
Vi INTRODUCTION
shown that the historical memory of the pre-Islamic Arabs was so

defective that all knowledg-e of great nations like the Nabataeans and
Thamudites had been lost within two or three centuries.* (2) The
literary quality of the narratives stamps them as products of the
artistic imagination. The very picturesqueness and truth to life which
are sometimes appealed to in proof of their historicity are, on the
contrary, characteristic marks of legend (Di. 218). We may assume
that the scene at the well of Harran (ch. 24) actually took place ; but
that the description owes its graphic power to a reproduction of the
exact words spoken and the precise actions performed on the occasion
cannot be supposed it is due to the revivifying work of the imagination
;
of successive narrators. But imagination, uncontrolled by the critical

faculty, does not confine itself to restoring the original colours of a
faded picture ; it introduces new colours, insensibly modifying the
picture till it becomes impossible to tell how much belongs to the real
situation and how much to later fancy. The clearest proof of this is
the existence of parallel narratives of an event which can only have
happened once, but which emerges in tradition in forms so diverse that
they may even pass for separate incidents (12^°^* 20^^* 26^*^" 16. 21^*' ;
|| || ; ||
15. 17, etc.).

II — (3) The subject-matter of the tradition is of the kind con-
genial to the folk-tale all the world over, and altogether different from
transactions on the stage of history. The proper theme of history, as
has been said, is great public and political events ; but legend delights in
genre pictures, private and personal affairs, trivial anecdotes of domestic
—
and everyday life, and so forth, matters which interest the common
people and come home to their daily experience. That most of the stories
of Genesis are of this description needs no proof and the fact is very
;
instructive. t A real history of the patriarchal period would have to tell

of migrations of peoples, of religious movements, probably of wars of
invasion and conquest and accordingly most modern attempts to
;
vindicate the historicity of Genesis proceed by way of translating the

narratives into such terms as these. But this is to confess that the
narratives themselves are not history. They have been simplified and
idealised to suit the taste of an unsophisticated audience ; and in the
process the strictly historic element, down to a bare residuum, has
evaporated. The single passage which preserves the ostensible appear-
ance of history in this respect is ch. 14 and that chapter, which in any
;
case stands outside the circle of patriarchal tradition, has difficulties of

its own which cannot be dealt with here (see p. 271 ff.). —
(4) The final test
— though to any one who has learned to appreciate the spirit of the
—
narratives it must seem almost brutal to apply it is the hard matter-of-
fact test of self-consistency and credibility. It is not difficult to show
that Genesis relates incredibilities which no reasonable appeal to miracle

will suffice to remove. With respect to the origin of the world, the
antiquity of man on the earth, the distribution and relations of peoples,
the beginnings of civilisation, etc., its statements are at variance with
• Amalekiter, p. 25 f.
t Cf. Wi. Abraham ah Bahyloniery 7.

INTRODUCTION Vll
the scientific knowledge of our time ; * and no person of educated

intelligence accepts them in their plain natural sense. know that We
angels do not cohabit with mortal women, that the Flood did not cover
the highest mountains of the world, that the ark could not have accom-
modated all the species of animals then existing, that the Euphrates
and Tigris have not a common source, that the Dead Sea was not first
formed in the time of Abraham, etc. There is admittedly a great
difference in respect of credibility between the primaeval (chs. i-i i) and
the patriarchal (12-50) traditions. But even the latter, when taken as a
whole, yields many impossible situations. Sarah was more than sixty-
five years old when Abraham feared that her beauty might endanger
his life in Egypt she was over ninety when the same fear seized him in
;
Gerar. Abraham at the age of ninety-nine laughs at the idea of having

a son yet forty years later he marries and begets children. Both
;
Midian and Ishmael were grand-uncles of Joseph ; but their descendants

appear as tribes trading with Egypt in his boyhood. Amalek was a
grandson of Esau yet the Amalekites are settled in the Negeb in the
;
—
time of Abraham. t It is a thankless task to multiply such examples.
The contradictions and violations of probability and scientific possibility
are intelligible, and not at all disquieting, in a collection of legends ;
but they preclude the supposition that Genesis is literal history.
It is not implied in what has been said that the tradition

is destitute of historical value. History, legendary history,
legend, myth, form a descending
scale, with decreasing
emphasis on the historical element, and the lines between
the first three are vague and fluctuating. In what pro-
portions they are combined in Genesis it may be impossible
to determine with certainty. But there are three ways in
which a tradition mainly legendary may yield solid historical
results. In the first place, a legend may embody a more or
less exact recollection of the fact in which it originated.
In the second place, a legend, though unhistorical in form,
may furnish material from which history can be extracted.
Thirdly, the collateral evidence of archaeology may bring to
light a correspondence which gives a historical significance
to the legend. How far any of these lines can be followed
to a successful issue in the case of Genesis, we shall con-
sider later (§ 4), after we have examined
obviously the
legendary motives which enter into the tradition. Mean-
while the previous discussion will have served its purpose
*SeeDri. XXXI ff. 19 ff.

t See Reuss, Gesch. d. heil. Schr. AT^, 167 f.
f
viH INTRODUCTION
if any readers have been led to perceive that the religious

teaching of Genesis lies precisely in that legendary element
whose existence is Our chief task is to
here maintained.
discover the meaning of the legends as they stand, being
assured that from the nature of the case these religious
ideas were operative forces in the life of ancient Israel. It
isa suicidal error in exegesis to suppose that the permanent

value of the book lies in the residuum of historic fact that
underlies the poetic and imaginative form of the narratives.*
§ 3. Myth and legend— Foreign myths — Types of

mythical motive.
I. Are there myths in Genesis, as well as legends? On

this question there has been all the variety of opinion that
might be expected. Some writers, starting with the theory
that mythology is a necessary phase of primitive thinking,
have found in the OT
abundant confirmation of their thesis.
The more view has been that the mythopoeic
prevalent
tendency was suppressed in Israel by the genius of its
jceligion, and that mythology in the true sense is unknown
in its literature. Others have taken up an intermediate
position, denying that the Hebrew mind produced myths of
its own, but admitting that it borrowed and adapted those
of other peoples. For all practical purposes, the last view

seems to be very near the truth.
For attempts to discriminate between myth and legend, see Tuch, pp.
i-xv; Gu. p. xvn Hoffding-, Phil, of Rel. (Eng. tr.), 199 fF. ; Gordon,
;
77 fF.; Procksch, Nordhehr. Sagenbuch, I. etc. —

The practically im-
portant distinction is that the legend does, and the myth does not, start
from the plane of historic fact. The myth is properly a story of the
gods, originating in an impression produced on the primitive mind by
the more imposing phenomena of nature, while legend attaches itself to
the personages and movements of real history. Thus the Flood-story
is a legend if Noah be a historical figure, and the kernel of the narrative
an actual event; it is a myth if it be based on observation of a
• On various points dealt with in this paragraph, see the admirable

statement of A. R. Gordon, Early Traditions of Ge7iesis^ pp. 76-92.
t Goldziher, Der Mythos bei den Hebrdern (1876).
INTRODUCTION IX
solar phenomenon, and Noah a representative of the sun-god (see

p. i8of.). But the utility of this distinction is largely neutralised by a
universal tendency to transfer mythical traits from gods to real men
(Sargon of Agade, Moses, Alexander, Charlemagne, etc.) so that the ;
most indubitable traces of mythology will not of themselves warrant

the conclusion that the hero is not a historical personage. —
Gordon
differentiates between spontaneous (nature) myths and reflective
(aetiological) myths and, while recognising the existence of the latter
;
in Genesis, considers that the former type is hardly represented in the

OT at all. The important, though it may be doubted if
distinction is
aetiology is ever a primary impulse to the formation of myths, and as a

parasitic development it appears to attach itself indifferently to myth
and legend. Hence there is a large class of narratives which it is
difficult to label either as mythical or as legendary, but in which the
aetiological or some similar motive is prominent (see p. xi ff.).
2, The influence of foreign mythology is most apparent

in the primitive traditions of chs. i-ii. The discovery of
the Babylonian versions of the Creation- and Deluge-
traditions has put beyond reasonable doubt that these are
it
the originals from which the biblical accounts have been

derived (pp. 45 ff., 177 f.). A similar relation obtains between
the antediluvian genealogy of ch. 5 and Berossus's list of
the ten Babylonian kings who reigned before the Flood
(p. i37f.)« The story of Paradise has its nearest analogies
in Iranianmythology but there are faint Babylonian echoes
;
which suggest that it belonged to the common mythological

heritage of the East (p. 90 ff.). Both here and in ch. 4
a few isolated coincidences with Phoenician tradition may
point to the Canaanite civilisation as the medium through
which such myths came to the knowledge of the Israelites.
—All these (as well as the story of the Tower of Babel)
—
were originally genuine myths stories of the gods and if ;
they no longer deserve that appellation, it is because the

spirit of Hebrew monotheism has exorcised the polytheistic
notions of deity, apart from which true mythology cannot
survive. The few passages where the old heathen concep-
tion of godhead still appears (i^^ 3^^- 2* 6^^- 11^^), only serve
to show how completely the religious beliefs of Israel have
transformed and purified the crude speculations of pagan
theology, and adapted them to the ideas of an ethical and
monotheistic faith.
X INTRODUCTION
The naturalisation of Babylonian myths in Israel is conceivable in a

variety of ways ; and the question is perhaps more interesting as an
illustration of two rival tendencies in criticism than for its possibilities
of actual solution. The tendency of the literary school of critics has
been to explain the process by the direct use of Babylonian documents,
and to bring- it down to near the dates of our written Pent, sources.*
Largely through the influence of Gunkel, a different view has come
to prevail, viz., that we are to think rather of a gradual process of
assimilation to the religious ideas of Israel in the course of oral trans-
mission, the myths having first passed into Canaanite tradition as the
result (immediate or remote) of the Babylonian supremacy prior to the
Tell-Amarna period, and thence to the Israelites, t The strongest
argument for this theory is that the biblical versions, both of the
Creation and the Flood, give evidence of having passed through several
stages in Hebrew tradition. Apart from that, the considerations urged
in support of either theory do not seem to me conclusive. There are
no recognisable traces of a specifically Canaanite medium having been
interposed between the Bab. originals and the Hebrew accounts of the
Creation and the Flood, such as we may surmise in the case of the
Paradise myth. It is open to argue against Gu. that if the process had
been as protracted as he says, the divergence would be much greater
than it actually is. Again, we cannot well set limits to the deliberate
manipulation of Bab. material by a Hebrew writer and the assump- ;
tion that such a writer in the later period would have been repelled by
the gross polytheism of the Bab. legends, and refused to have anything
to do with them, is a little gratuitous. On the other hand, it is unsafe
to assert with Stade that the myths could not have been assimilated by
Israelite theology before the belief in Yahwe's sole deity had been
firmly established by the teaching of the prophets. Monotheism had
roots in Heb. antiquity extending much further back than the age of
written prophecy, and the present form of the legends is more intel-
ligible as theproduct of an earlier phase of religion than that of the
literary prophets. But when we consider the innumerable channels
through which myths may wander from one centre to another, we shall
hardly expect to be able to determine the precise channel, or the ap-
proximate date, of this infusion of Bab. elements into the religious
tradition of Israel.
It is remarkable that while the patriarchal legends exhibit no traces
of Bab. mythology, they contain a few examples of mythical narrative
to which analogies are found in other quarters. The visit of the angels
to Abraham (see p. 302 f.), and the destruction of Sodom (p. 311 f ), are
Incidents of obviously mythical origin (stories of the gods) ; and to both,
classical and other parallels exist. The account of the births of Esau
See Bu. Urg. (1883), 515 f.; Kuenen, ThT, xviii. (1884), 167 ff. ;
Rosters, ih.xix. (1885), 325 ff., 344; Sta. ^^7-1^(1895), 159 f, (1903),
i75ff-
\Sch6pfung und Chaos (1895), 143 ff- ; Gen.^ (1902), 64 f. Cf.
Dri. 31.
INTRODUCTION XI
and Jacob embodies a mythological motive (p. 359), which is repeated

in the case of Zerah and Perez (ch. 38). The whole story of Jacob
and Esau presents several points of contact with that of the brothers
Hypsouranios (Samem-rum) and Usoos in the Phoenician mythology
(Usoos = Esau see pp. 360, 124). There appears also to be a Homeric
:
variant of the incest of Reuben (p. 427). These phenomena are among
the most perplexing which we encounter in the study of Hebrew tradi-
tion.* We can as yet scarcely conjecture the hidden source from which
such widely ramified traditions have sprung, though we may not on
that account ignore the existence of the problem. It would be at all
events a groundless anticipation that the facts will lead us to resolve
the patriarchs into mythological abstractions. They are
rather to be
explained by the tendency already referred to mingle myth
(p. ix), to
with legend by transferring mythical incidents to historic personages.
3. It remains, before we go on to consider the historical

elements of the tradition, to classify the leading types of
mythical, or semi-mythical (p. ix), motive which appear in
the narratives of Genesis. It will be seen that while they
undoubtedly detract from the literal historicity of the records,
they represent points of view which are of the greatest
historical interest, and are absolutely essential to the right
interpretation of the legends.!
(a) The most comprehensive category is that of eettolo^^cal or ex-

planatory myths ; ue.y those which explain some familiar fact of experi-
ence by a story of the olden time. Both the questions asked and the
answers returned are frequently of the most naive and childlike descrip-
tion they have, as Gu. has said, all the charm which belongs to the
:
artless but profound reasoning of an intelligent child. The classical

example is the story of Paradise and the Fall in chs. 2. 3, which con-
tains one explicit instance of aetiology {2^* why a man cleaves to his
:
wife), and implicitly a great many more why we wear clothes and
:
detest snakes, why the serpent crawls on his belly, why the peasant has
to drudge in the fields, and the woman to endure the pangs of travail,
etc. (p. 95). Similarly, the account of creation explains why there are
so many kinds of plants and animals, why man is lord of them all, why
the sun shines by day and the moon by night, etc. ; why the Sabbath
is kept. The Flood-story tells us the meaning of the rainbow, and of
the regular recurrence of the seasons the Babel-myth accounts for the
:
existing diversities of language amongst men. Pure examples of

aetiology are practically confined to the first eleven chapters but the ;
same general idea pervades the patriarchal history, specialised under

the headings which follow.
* See Gu. p. lvi.

t The enumeration, which is not quite exhaustive, is taken, with
some simplification, from Gu. p. XVIII fF.
—
xil INTRODUCTION
{b) The commonest class of all, especially in the patriarchal narra-

tives, is what may be called ethnographic legends. It is an obvious
feature of the narratives that the heroes of them are frequently per-
sonifications of tribes and peoples, whose character and history and
mutual relationships are exhibited under the guise of individual bio-
graphy. Thus the pre-natal struggle of Jacob and Esau prefigures the
rivalry of two nations (25'^^) the monuments set up by Jacob and
* ' ;
Laban mark the frontier between Israelites and Aramaeans (31^*^*) ;
Ishmael is the prototype of the wild Bedouin (16^'^), and Cain of some
ferocious nomad-tribe Jacob and his twelve sons represent the unity
;
of Israel and its division into twelve tribes and so on. This mode of
;
thinking was not peculiar to Israel (cf. the Hellen, Dorus, Xuthus,
Aeolus, Achseus, Ion, of the Greeks) * but it is one specially natural to
;
the Semites from their habit of speaking of peoples as sons {i.e. members)
of the collective entity denoted by the tribal or national name (sons of
Israel, of Ammon, of Ishmael, etc.), whence arose the notion that these
entitieswere the real progenitors of the peoples so designated. That
in some cases the representation was correct need not be doubted for ;
there are known examples, both among the Arabs and other races in a
similar stage of social development, of tribes named after a famous
ancestor or leader of real historic memory. But that this is the case
with all eponymous persons e.g. that there were really such men as
Jerahmeel, Midian, Aram, Sheba, Amalek, and the rest is quite in- —
credible and, moreover, it is never true that the fortunes of a tribe are
;
an exact copy of the personal experiences of its reputed ancestor,

even if he existed. We must therefore treat these legends as symbolic
representations of the ethnological affinities between different tribes
or peoples, and (to a less extent) of the historic experiences of these
peoples. There is a great danger of driving this interpretation too
far, by assigning an ethnological value to details of the legend which
never had any such significance but to this matter we shall have occa-
;
sion to return at a later point (see p. xixff".).

(c) Next in importance to these ethnographic legends are the cuU-
legends. A
considerable proportion of the patriarchal narratives are
designed to explain the sacredness of the principal national sanctuaries,
while a few contain notices of the origin of particular ritual customs
(circumcision, ch. 17 [but cf. Ex. 42^^-] the abstinence from eating the
;
sciatic nerve, 32^). To the former class belong such incidents as Hagar
at Lahairoi (16), Abraham at the oak of Mamre (18), his planting of the
tamarisk at Beersheba (21^3), Jacob at Bethel— with the reason for
anointing the sacred stone, and the institution of the tithe— (28^°^-), and
at Peniel (3224^*) ; and many more. The general idea is that the places
were hallowed by an appearance of the deity in the patriarchal period,
or at least by the performance of an act of worship (erection of an altar,
etc.) by one of the ancestors of Israel. In reality the sanctity of these
spots was in many cases of immemorial antiquity, being rooted in the
most primitive forms of Semitic religion and at times the narrative
;
* See Dri. 112 ; Gordon, ETG, 88.

INTRODUCTION Xlll
suffers it to appear that the place was holy before the visit of the patriarch
(see on 12^). probable that inauguration-legends had grown up at the
It is
chief sanctuaries while they were still in the possession of the Canaanites.
We cannot tell how far such legends were transferred to the Hebrew
ancestors, and how far the traditions are of native Israelite growth.
(d) Of much less interest to us is the etymological motive which so
frequently appears as a side issue in legends of wider scope. Specula-
lation on the meaning and origin of names is fascinating to all primitive
peoples ; and in default of a scientific philology the most fantastic
explanations are readily accepted. That it was so in ancient Israel
could be easily shown from the etymologies of Genesis. Here, again,
it is just conceivable that the explanation given may occasionally be
correct (though there is hardly a case in which it is plausible) but in ;
the majority of cases the real meaning of the name stands out in
palpable contradiction to the alleged account of its origin. Moreover,
it is not uncommon to find the same name explained in two different
ways (many of Jacob's sons, ch. 30), or to have as many as three sug-
gestions of its historic origin (Ishmael, 16^' 17^° 21" Isaac, 17^^ 18^^ 21^).
;
To claim literal accuracy for incidents of this kind is manifestly futile.

{e) There is yet another element which, though not mythical or
legendary, belongs to the imaginative side of the legends, and has to

be taken account of in interpreting them. This is the element of poetic
idealisation. Whenever a character enters the world of legend, whether
through the gate of history or through that of ethnographic personifica-
tion, it is apt to be conceived as a type and as the story passes from
;
mouth to mouth the typical features are emphasised, while those which
have no such significance tend to be effaced or forgotten. Then the
—
dramatic instinct comes into play the artistic desire to perfect the story
as a lifelike picture of human nature in interesting situations and action.
To see how far this process may be carried, we have but to compare
the conception of Jacob's sons in the Blessing of Jacob (ch. 49) with
their appearance in the younger narratives of Joseph and his brethren.
In the former case the sons are tribal personifications, and the char-
acters attributed to them are those of the tribes they represent. In the
latter, these characteristics have almost entirely disappeared, and the
central interest is now the pathos and tragedy of Hebrew family life.
Most of the brothers are without chai'acter or individuality ; but the
accursed Reuben and Simeon are respected members of the family, and
the *wolf' Benjamin has become a helpless child whom the father will
hardly let go from his side. This, no doubt, is the supreme instance of
romantic or novelistic treatment which the book contains but the
*
'
;
same idealising tendency is at work elsewhere, and must constantly be

allowed for in endeavouring to reach the historic or ethnographic basis
from which the legends start.
§ 4. Historical value of the tradition.
Ithas already been remarked (p. vii) that there are three
chief ways in which an oral, and therefore legendary, tradi-
—
XIV INTRODUCTION
tion may yield solid historical results: firsts through the

retention in the popular memory of the impression caused
by real events and personalities ; secondly^ by the recovery
of historic (mainly ethnographic) material from the biographic
form of the tradition and thirdly through the confirmation
; ^
of contemporary archaeological evidence.

* It will be con-
'
venient to start with the last of these, and consider what is

known about
I. The historical background of the patriarchal traditions.
— The period covered by the patriarchal narratives * may be

defined very roughly as the first half of the second millennium
(2000-1500) B.C. The upper limit depends on the generally
accepted assumption, based (somewhat insecurely, as it
seems to us) on ch. 14, that Abraham was contemporary
with Hammurabi, the 6th king of the first Babylonian
dynasty. The date of Ilammurabi is probably c. 2100 B.c.f
* The confined to the patriarchal tradi-

discussion in this section is
tion, because it is it that the question of essential

only with regard to
historicity arises. Every one admits that the pre-historic chapters
(i-ii) stand on a different footing, and there are few who would claim
for them the authority of a continuous tradition.
t The date here assigned to Hammurabi is based on the recent
investigations of Thureau-Dangin {Journal des Savants\\^%\ 190 ff. ;
ZA, xxi. [1908], 176 ff.), and Ungnad {OLz. [1908], 13 ff.); with whom
Poebel {ZA^ xxi. 162 ff.) is in substantial agreement. The higher
estimates which formerly prevailed depended on the natural assumption
that the first three dynasties of the Royal Lists (first published in 1880
and 1884) reigned consecutively in Babylon. But in 1907, L. W. King
{Chronicles concerning early Bah. Kings) published new material, which
showed conclusively that the Second dynasty, ruling over the * Country
of the Sea,' was not wholly, contemporaneous with
at least partly, if
the First and Third dynasties in Babylon. King himself and Meyer
(G^S I. ii. 339 ff. [1909]) hold that the Third (Ka§§ite) dynasty followed
immediately on the First ; and that consequently the previous estimates
of the chronology of the First dynasty have to be reduced by the total
duration of the Second dynasty (368 years according to List A). The
scholars cited at the head of this note consider, on the other hand, that
the contemporaneousness was only partial, and that there was an
interval of 176 years between the close of the First dynasty and the
accession of the Third. The chief data are these King's new chronicle :
has proved beyond dispute (i) that Ilima-ilu, the founder of the Second
dynasty, was contemporary with Samsu-iluna and Abi-e§u', the 7th and
8th kings of the First dynasty and (2) that Ea-gimil, the last king of
;
INTRODUCTION XV
The lower limit is determined by the Exodus, which is
usually assigned (as it must be if Ex. i^^ is genuine) to the

reign of Merneptah of the Nineteenth Egyptian dynasty
(c. 1234-1214 Allowing a sufficient period for the
B.C.).
sojourn of Israel in Egypt, we come back to about the

middle of the millennium as the approximate time when the
family left Palestine for that country. The Hebrew chron-
ology assigns nearly the same date as above to Abraham,
but a much earlier one for the Exodus {c. 1490), and reduces
the residence of the patriarchs in Canaan to 215 years;
since, however, the chronological system rests on artificial
calculations (see pp. i35f., 234), we cannot restrict our survey
to the narrow limits which it assigns to the patriarchal period
in Palestine. Indeed, the chronological uncertainties are so
numerous that it is embrace an even wider field
desirable to
than the mentioned above.*
five centuries
In the opinion of a growing and influential school of

writers, this period of history has been so illumined by
the Second dynasty, was an older contemporary of a certain Ka§§ite

(king- ?), Ka§tilia§. Now, Ka§tilia§ is the name of the 3rd king- of the
KasSite dynasty and the question is whether this Ka§tiHa§ is to be
;
identified with thecontemporary of Ea-g4mil. Th.-Dangin, etc., answer

in the affirmative, with the result stated above. King opposes the
identification, and thinks the close of the Second dynasty coincides
with a gap in the Ust of Ka§§ite kings (8th to 15th), where the name of
Ka§tilia§ may have stood. Meyer accepts the synchronism of Ea-g4mil
with the third Ka§§ite king but gets rid of the interregnum by a
;
somewhat arbitrary reduction of the duration of the Second dynasty to

about 200 years. For fuller information, the reader is referred to the
lucid note in Dri. Gen.'^ xxvii. ff. (with lists). —
King believes that his
date for âmmurabi (c. 1958-191 6) facilitates the identification of that
monarch with the Amraphel of Gn. 14 (see p. 257 f. below), by bringing
the interval between Abraham and the Exodus into nearer accord with
the biblical data ; but in view of the artificial character of the biblical
chronology (v.s.), it is doubtful if any weight whatever can be allowed
to this consideration.
* Thus the Exodus is sometimes (in defiance of Ex. i^^) put back to
c. (Hommel, ET, x. [1899], 210 ff. Orr, POT, 422 flf.); while
1450 B.C. ;
Eerdmans would bring it down to c. 11 25 B.C. {Vorgeschichte Israels,

74; Exp. 1908, Sept. 204). Joseph is by some (Marquart, Wi. al.)
identified with a minister of Amenophis iv. {c. 1380- 1360), by Eerdmans
with a Semitic ruler at the very end of the Nineteenth dynasty (c. 1205).
See p. 501 f.
XVI INTRODUCTION
recent discoveries that it is no longer possible to doubt the

essential historicity of the patriarchal tradition.* It is
admitted that no external evidence has come to light of the

existence of such persons as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and
Joseph, or even (with the partial exception of Joseph) of
men playing parts at all corresponding to theirs. But it is
maintained that contemporary documents reveal a set of
conditions into which the patriarchal narratives fit perfectly,
and which are so different from those prevailing under the

monarchy that the situation could not possibly have been
imagined by an Israelite of that later age. Now, that recent
archaeology has thrown a flood of light on the period in
question, is beyond all doubt. It has proved that Palestinian
culture and religion were saturated by Babylonian influences

long before the supposed date of Abraham that from that ;
date downwards intercourse with Egypt was frequent and

easy; and that the country was more than once subjected
to Egyptian conquest and authority. It has given us a
most interesting glimpse from about 2000 B.C. of the natural

products of Canaan, and the manner of life of its inhabitants
(Tale of Sinuhe). At a later time (Tell-Amarna letters) it
shows the Egyptian dominion threatened by the advance of
Hittites from the north, and by the incursion of a body of
nomadic marauders called Habiri (see p. 218). It tells us that
Jakob-el (and Joseph-el ?) was the name of a place in Canaan
in the first half of the 15th cent. (pp. 360, 389 f.), and that
Israelwas a tribe living in Palestine about 1200 B.C.; also that
Hebrews f Apriw) were a foreign population in Egypt from
the time of Ramses 11. to that of Ramses iv. (Heyes, Bib,
u. Aeg. 146 ff".; Eerdmans, 52 Exp. I.e. 197). All
I.e. ff". ;
this is of the utmost value and if the patriarchs lived in

;
this age, then this is the background against which we

have to set their biographies. But the real question is
whether there is such a correspondence between the bio-
* Jeremias, ATLO'^, 365 **:Wir haben gezeig-t, dass das Milieu der
Vatergeschichten in alien Einzelheiten zu den altorientalischen Kultur-
verhaltnissen stimmt, die uns die Denkmaler fur die in Betracht kom-
menden Zeit bezeugen."
INTRODUCTION XVll
graphics and their background that the former would be

unintellig-ible if transplanted to other and later surroundings.
We should gladly welcome any evidence that this is the
case but it seems to us that the remarkable thing about
;
these narratives is just the absence of background and their

general compatibility with the universal conditions of ancient
Eastern life."^ The case for the historicity of the tradition,
based on correspondences with contemporary evidence from
the period in question, appears to us to be greatly over-
stated
The line ofarg-ument that claims most careful attention is to the

following- effect Certain legal customs presupposed by the patriarchal
:
stories are now known to have prevailed (in Babylon) in the age of
IJammurabi these customs had entirely ceased in Israel under the
;
monarchy consequently the narratives could not have been invented

;
by legend-writers of that period (Je. ATLO^, 355 ff-)- The strongest

case is the truly remarkable parallel supplied by Cod. Hamm. 146 to
the position of Hagar as concubine-slave in ch. 16 (below, p. 285). Here
everything turns on the probability that this usage was unknown in
Israel in the regal period and it is surely pressing the argumentum
;
ex silentio too far to assert confidently that if it had been known it

would certainly have been mentioned in the later literature. We must
remember that Genesis contains almost the only pictures of intimate
family life in the OT, and that it refers to many things not mentioned
later simply because there was no occasion to speak of them. Were
twin-births peculiar to the patriarchial period because two are men-
tioned in Gen. and none at all in the rest of the OT ? The fact that
the custom of the concubine - slave has persisted in Mohammedan
countries down to modern times, should warn us against such sweeping
negations. —
Again, we learn {ih. 358) that the simultaneous marriage
with two sisters was permitted by ancient Babylonian law, but was
proscribed in Hebrew legislation as incestuous. Yes, but the law in
* A striking illustration of this washing out of historical

background
is the contrast between the Genesis narratives and the Eg-yptian Tale
of Sinuhe, from which Je. {ATLO^, 298 ff.) quotes at length in demonstra-
tion of their verisimilitude. While the latter is full of detailed informa-
tion about the people among whom the writer lived, the former (except
in chs. 14. 34. 38) have hardly any allusions (24^ 371s'-) to the aboriginal
population of Palestine proper. Luther {INS, 156 f.) even maintains
that the original Yahwist conceived Canaan as at this time an unin-
habited country Without going so far as that, we cannot but regard
!
the fact as an indication of the process of abstraction which the narratives

have undergone in the course of oral transmission. Would they appeal
to the heart of the world as they do if they retained, to the extent
sometimes alleged, the signature of an obsolete civilisation ?
b
XVlll INTRODUCTION
question (Lv. i8^^) is late ; and does not its enactment in the PC rather
imply that the practice against which it is directed survived in Israel
till the close of the monarchy ? —
The distinction between the mohar, or
purchase price of a wife, and the gift to the bride («6.), should not be
cited : mohar is an institution everywhere prevailing in early pastoral
the
societies is known to Hebrew jurisprudence (Ex. 22^^)
; it its name is ;
not old Babylonian and even its transmutation into personal service
;
is in accordance with Arab practice (p. 383 below). In short, it does '
—
not appear that the examples given differ from another class of usages,
"die nicht spezifisch altbabylonisch sind, sondern auch spatern bez.
intergentilen Rechtszustanden entsprechen, die aber wenigstens . . .
Beleuchtung durch den Cod. Hamm. erfahren."

teilweise eine interessante
The "interessante Beleuchtung" will be freely admitted.
Still less has the new knowledge of the political circumstances of
Palestine contributed to the direct elucidation of the patriarchal tradi-
tion, although it has brought to light certain facts which have to be
taken into account in interpreting that tradition. The complete silence
of the narratives as to the protracted Egyptian dominion over the
country is very remarkable, and only to be explained by a fading of
the actual situation from the popular memory during the course of oral
transmission. The existence of Philistines in the time of Abraham is,
so far as archaeology can inform us, a positive anachronism. On the
whole it must be said that archaeology has in this region created more
problems than it has solved. The occurrence of the name Yakob-el in
the time of Thothmes iii., of Asher under Seti i. and Ramses ii., and
of Israel under Merneptah ; the appearance of Hebrews (Ij[abiri ?) in
Palestine in the 15th cent., and in Egypt ('Apriw ?) from Ramses II. to
Ramses IV., present so many difficulties to the adjustment of the
patriarchal figures to their original background. We do not seem as
yet to be in sight of a historical construction which shall enable us to
bring these conflicting data into line with an intelligible rendering of
the Hebrew tradition.
considerations such as these that give so keen an edge to the
It is
controversy about the genuineness of ch. 14. That is the only section
of Genesis which seems to set the figure of Abraham in the framework
of world history. If it be a historical document, then we have a fixed
centre round which the Abrahamic traditions, and possibly those of the
other patriarchs as well, will group themselves if it be but a late imita-
;
tion of history, we are cast adrift, with nothing to guide us except an

uncertain and artificial scheme of chronology. For an attempt to
estimate the force of the arguments on either side we must refer to the
commentary below (p. ayiff.). Here, however, it is in point to observe
that even if the complete historicity of ch, 14 were established, it would
take us but a little way towards the authentication of the patriarchal
traditions as a whole. For that episode confessedly occupies a place
entirely unique in the records of the patriarchs and all the marks of ;
contemporary authorship which it is held to present are so many proofs
* See S. A. Cook, Cambridge Biblical Essays, 79 f.

INTRODUCTION XIX
that the remaining narratives are of a different character, and lack that
particular kind of attestation. The coexistence of oral traditions and
historic notices relating- to the same individual proves that the former
rest on a basis of fact
; but it does not warrant the inference that the
oral tradition accurate in detail, or even that it faithfully reflects the
is
circumstances of the period with which it deals. And to us the Abraham

of oral tradition is a far more important religious personality than
Abram the Hebrew, the hero of the exploit recorded in ch. 14.
2. Ethnological theories. — The negative conclusion ex-

pressed above (p. xvii f.) as to the value of ancient Babylonian
analogies to the patriarchal tradition, depends partly on the
assumption of the school of writers whose views were
under consideration: viz., that the narratives are a tran-
script of actual family that remote age, and therefore
life in
susceptible of illustration from private law as we find it

embodied in the Cod. Hamm. It makes, however, little
difference if for family relations we substitute those of clans

and peoples to one another, and treat the individuals as
representatives of the tribes to which Israel traced its origin.
We shall then find the real historic content of the legends
in migratory movements, tribal divisions and fusions, and
general ethnological phenomena, which popular tradition
has disguised as personal biographies. This is the line of
interpretation which has mostly prevailed in critical circles
since Ewald * and ; it has given rise to an extraordinary
variety of theories. In itself (as in the hands of Ewald) it
is not necessarily inconsistent with belief in the individual

existence of the patriarchs though its more extreme ex-
;
ponents do not recognise this as credible. The theories in

question fall into two groups : those which regard the
narratives as ideal projections into the past of relations sub-
sisting, or conceptions formed, after the final settlement in
Canaan ; f and those which try to extract from them a real
history of the period before the Exodus. Since the former
class deny a any kind behind the patriarchal
solid tradition of
story, we may here pass them over, and confine our atten-
* Hist, oflsr. \. 363, 382, etc.
t So We. Prol.^ 319 flf. [Eng. tr. 318 ff.], Isr. undjiid. Gesch. 11 flf.
;
Sta. GVI, i. 145 ff., ZATW, i. 112 flf.,

347 ff.
;;
XX INTRODUCTION
tion to those which do allow a certain substratum of truth

in the pictures of the pre-Exodus period.
As a specimen of this class of theories, neither better nor worse than
we may take that of Cornill. According
others that might be chosen,
to him, Abraham was a real person, who headed a migration from
Mesopotamia to Canaan about 1500 B.C. Through the successive
separations of Moab, Ammon, and Edom, the main body of immigrants
was so reduced that it might have been submerged, but for the arrival
of a fresh contingent from Mesopotamia under the name Jacob (the
names, except Abraham's, are all tribal or national). This reinforce-
ment consisted of four groups, of which the Leah-group was the oldest
and strongest. The tribe of Joseph then aimed at the hegemony, but
was overpowered by the other tribes, and forced to retire to Egypt.
The Bilhah-group, thus deprived of its natural support, was assailed by
the Leah-tribes led by Reuben but the attempt was foiled, and Reuben
;
lost his birthright. Subsequently the whole of the tribes were driven to
seek shelter in Egypt, when Joseph took a noble revenge by allowing
them to settle by its side in the frontier province of Egypt {Hist, of
Israel, 29 ff. ).
It will be seen that the construction hangs mainly on

two leading ideas : tribal affinities typified by various phases
of the marriage relation ; and migrations. As regards the
first, we have seen (p. xii) that there is a true principle at
the root of the method. It springs from the personification
of a tribe under the name of an individual, male or female
and we have admitted that many names in Genesis have this
significance, and probably no other. If, then, two eponymous
ancestors (Jacob and Esau) are represented as twin brothers,
we may be sure that the peoples in question were conscious
of an extremely close affinity. If a male eponym is married
to a female, we may presume (though with less confidence)

that the two tribes were amalgamated. Or, if one clan is
spoken of as a wife and another as a concubine, we may
reasonably conclude that the latter was somehow inferior to
the former. But beyond a few simple analogies of this kind

(each of which, moreover, requires to be tested by the inherent
probabilities of the case) the method ceases to be reliable
and the attempt to apply it to all the complex family relation-
ships of the patriarchs only lands us in confusion.* —The
* Guthe {GVI, 1-6) has formulated a set of five rules which he thinks
can be used (with tact !) in retranslating the genealogical phraseology

INTRODUCTION XXI
idea of migration is still less trustworthy. Certainly not

every journey recorded in Genesis {e.g. that of Joseph from
Hebron to Shechem and Dothan, 37^^^* : pace Steuernagel)
can be explained as a migratory movement. Even when
the ethnological background movements of
is apparent, the
tribes may be necessary corollaries of the assumed relation-
ships between them {e.g. Jacob's journey to Harran p. :
357); and it will be difficult to draw the line between these

and real migrations. The case of Abraham is no doubt a
strong one ; for if his figure has any ethnological significance
at all, his exodus from Harran (or Ur) can hardly be inter-
preted otherwise than as a migration of Hebrew tribes from
that region. We cannot feel same certainty with regard
the
to Joseph's being carried down to Egypt it seems to us ;
altogether doubtful if this be rightly understood as an en-

forced movement of the tribe of Joseph to Egypt in advance
of the rest (see p. 441).
But it is when we pass from genealogies and marriages
and journeys to pictorial narrative that the breakdown of the
ethnological method becomes complete. The obvious truth
is that no tribal relationship can supply an adequate motive
for the wealth of detail that meets us in the richly coloured
patriarchal legends ; and the theory stultifies itself by as-
signing ethnological significance to incidents which origin-
ally had no such meaning. It will have been noticed that
Cornill utilises a few biographical touches to fill in his scheme
(the youthful ambition of Joseph his sale into Egypt, etc.),
;
and every other theorist does the same. Each writer selects
those incidents which fit into his own system, and neglects
those which would embarass it. Each system has some
plausible and attractive features ; but each, to avoid ab-
surdity, has to exercise a judicious restraint on the consistent
extension of its principles. The consequence is endless
into historical terms. There is probably not one of them which is

capable of rigorous and universal application. Thus, the marriage of
Jacob to Leah and Rachel does not necessarily imply that Jacob was a
tribe which successively absorbed the two clans so named it is just as :
likely that the union of Leah and Rachel with one another produced the
entity called Jacob.
XXll INTRODUCTION
diversity in detail, and no agreement even in general out-

line.*
It is evident that such constructions will never reach any satisfactory

result unless they find some point of support in the history of the period
as gathered from contemporary sources. The second millennium B.C.
is thought to have witnessed one great movement of Semitic tribes to
the north, viz., the Aramaean. About the middle of the millennium we
find the first notices of the Aramaeans as nomads in what is now the
Syro-Arabian desert. Shortly afterwards the Habiri make their appear-
ance in Palestine. It is a natural conjecture that these were branches
of the same migration, and it has been surmised that we have here the
explanation of the tradition which affirms the common descent of
Hebrews and Aramaeans. The question then arises whether we can
connect this fact with the patriarchal tradition, and if so with what
stratum of that tradition. Isaac and Joseph are out of the reckoning, be-
cause neither is ever brought into contact with the Aramaeans Rebekah
;
is too insignificant. Abraham is excluded by the chronology, unless

(with Corn.) we bring down his date to c. 1500, or (with Steuer.) regard
his migration as a traditional duplicate of Jacob's return from Laban.
But if Jacob is suggested, we encounter the difficulty that Jacob must
have been settled in Canaan some generations before the age of the
yabiri. In the case of Abraham there may be a conflation of two
traditions, —
one tracing his nativity to Harran and the other to Ur and
;
It is conceivable that he is the symbol of two migrations, one of which
might be identified with the arrival of the Habiri, and the other might
have taken place as early as the age of Hammurabi. But these are
speculations no whit more reliable than any of those dealt with above ;
and it has to be confessed that as yet archaeology has furnished no
sure basis for the reconstruction of the patriarchal history. It is permis-
sible to hope that further discoveries may bring to light facts which
shall enable us to decide more definitely than is possible at present
how far that history can be explained on ethnological lines, f
•Luther {^ZATW, 1901, 36 ff.) îves a conspectus of four leading

theories (We. Sta. Gu. Corn.), with the purpose of showing that the
consistent application of the method would speedily lead to absurd
results (46). He would
undoubtedly have passed no different verdict on
later combinations, such as those of Steuernagel, Einivanderung der. Isr,
Stdmme Peters, Early Hebrew Story, 45 ff. Procksch, Nordhebr. Sagen-
; ;
buch, 330 ff. etc. —

What Grote has written about the allegorical inter-
pretation of the Greek legends might be applied word for word to these
theories "The theorist who adopts this course of explanation finds
:
that after one or two simple and obvious steps, the way is no longer open,
and he is forced to clear a way for himself by gratuitous refinements
and conjectures" {Hist, of Greece, ed. 1888, p. 2).
t To the whole class of theories considered above (those which try to
go behind the Exodus), Luther (/.c. 44 f.) objects that they demand a
continuous occupation of Palestine from the time when the legends were
INTRODUCTION Xxiii
3. The patriarchs as i7idividuals, — We come, in the last

place, to consider the probability that the oral tradition,
through its own inherent tenacity of recollection, may have
retained some true impression of the events to which it
refers. After what has been said, it is vain to expect that

a picture true in every detail will be recoverable from
popular tales current in the earliest ages of the monarchy.
The course of oral tradition has been too long, the disturbing
influences to whichhas been exposed have been too
it
numerous and and the subsidiary motives which

varied,
have grafted themselves on to it too clearly discernible, to
admit of the supposition that more than a substantial nucleus
of historic fact can have been preserved in the national
memory of Israel. It is not, however, unreasonable to
believe that such a historical nucleus exists and that with ;
care we may disentangle from the mass of legendary accre-

tions some elements of actual reminiscence of the pre-
historic movements which determined the subsequent
development of the national life."*^ It is true that in this
region we have as a rule only subjective impressions to
guide us ;-but in the absence of external criteria a subjective
formed. He hints at a solution, which has been adopted in principle by

Meyer {INS, 127 ff., 415, 433), and which if verified would relieve some
archaeological and other. It is that two independent accounts
difficulties,
of the origin of the nation are preserved the Genesis-tradition, carrying
:
the ancestry of the people back to the Aramaeans, and the Exodus-
tradition, which traces the origin of the nation no further than Moses
and the Exodus. There are indications that in an earlier phase of the
patriarchal tradition the definitive conquest of Canaan was carried back
to Jacob and his sons (chs. 34. 38. 48^^) ^^ Meyer's view this does not
.
necessarily imply that the narratives refer to a time subsequent to

Joshua. Akernel of history may be recognised in both strands of
tradition, on the assumption (not in itself a violent one) that only a
section of Israel was in Egypt, and came out under Moses, while the
rest remained in Palestine. The extension of the Exodus-tradition to
the whole people was a natural effect of the consolidation of the nation ;
and this again might give rise to the story of Jacob's migration to
Egypt, with all his sons.
* Cf. Winckler, KAT^, 204: " Es ist namlich immer wahrschein-
licher, dass ein grosses fiir die Entwicklung des Volkes massgebend
gewordenes Ereigniss in seiner Geschlossenheit dem Gedachtniss besser
erhalten bleibt als die Einzelheiten seines Herganges."
XXIV INTRODUCTION
judgement has its value, and one in favour of the historic

origin of the tradition is at least as valid as another to the
contrary effect. — The two points on which attention now
falls to be concentrated are : (a) the personalities of the
patriarchs ; and [b) the religious significance of the tradi-
tion.
(a) It is a tolerably safe general maxim that tradition
does not invent names, or persons. We have on any view
to account for the entrance of such figures as Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob,and Joseph into the imagination of the
Israelites ;and amongst possible avenues of entrance we
must certainly count it as one, that they were real men,
who lived and were remembered. What other explanations
can be given ? The idea that they were native creations of
Hebrew mythology (Goldziher) has, for the present at least,
fallen into disrepute and there remain but two theories as
;
alternatives to the historic reality of the patriarchs : viz.,
that they were originally personified tribes, or that they

were originally Canaanite deities.
The conception of the patriarchs as tribal eponyms, we have already

seen to be admissible, though not proved. The idea that they were
Canaanite deities is not perhaps one that can be dismissed as trans-
parently absurd. If the Israelites, on entering- Canaan, found Abraham
worshipped at Hebron, Isaac at Beersheba, Jacob at Bethel, and Joseph
at Shechem, and if they adopted the cult of these deities, they might
come to regard themselves as their children and in course of time the
;
gods might be transformed into human ancestors around whom the

national legend might crystallise. At the same time the theory is
destitute of proof and the burden of proof lies on those who mamta'ia
;
it. Neither the fact (if it be a fact) that the patriarchs were objects of
worship at the shrines where their graves were shown, nor the presence
of mythical traits in their biographies, proves them to have been super-
—
human beings. 'The discussion turns largely on the evidence of the
patriarchal names but this, too, is indecisive. The name Israel is
;
national, and in so far as it is applied to an individual it is a case of

eponymous personification. Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (assuming these
to be contractions of Yizhak-el, etc.) are also most naturally explained
as tribal designations. Meyer, after long vacillation, has come to the
conclusion that they are divine names {INS, 249 ff.) ; but the arguments
which formerly convinced him that they are tribal seem to us more
cogent than those to which he now gives the preference. That names
of this type frequently denote tribes is a fact that they may denote ;
deities is only a hypothesis. That they may also denote individuals

INTRODUCTION XXV
(Yakub-tlu, YaSup-ilu) is true but that only establishes a possibility,
;
hardly a probability for it is more likely that the individual was named
;
after his tribe than that the tribe got its name from an individual. The —
name Abram stands by itself. It represents no ethnological entity, and
occurs historically only as the name of an individual and though it is ;
capable of being interpreted in a sense appropriate to deity, all analogy

is in favour of explaining it as a theophorous human name. The
solitary allusion to the biblicalAbram in the monuments the mention —
of the ' Field of Abram
Shishak's inscription (see p. 244) is entirely
'
in —
consistent with this acceptation. —
It is probably a mistake to insist on
carrying through any exclusive theory of the patriarchal personalities.
If we have proved that Abram was a historical individual, we have not
thereby proved that Isaac and Jacob were so also and if we succeed in ;
resolving the latter into tribal eponyms, it will not follow that Abraham
falls under the same category.
There is thus a justification for the tendency of many

writers to put Abraham on a different plane from the other
patriarchs, and to concentrate the discussion of the historicity
of the tradition mainly on his person. An important element
in the case is the clearly conceived type of character which
he represents. No doubt the character has been idealised
in accordance with the conceptions of a later age ; but the
impression remains that there must have been something in
the actual Abraham which gave a direction to the idealisa-
tion. It is this perception more than anything else which
invests the figure of Abraham with the significance which it
has possessed for devout minds in all ages, and which still
resists the attempt to dissolve him into a creation of religious

phantasy. If there be any truth in the description of legend
as a form of narrative conserving the impression of a great
personality on his age, we may venture, in spite of the lack
of decisive evidence, to regard him as a historic personage,
however dim the surroundings of his life may be.*
* Cf. Hoffding, Phil,

of Rel. 199 if. "Its essence [that of legend]
:
a wonderful personality who has made a deep

consists in the idea of
—
impression on human life who excited admiration, furnished an
example, and opened new paths. Under the influence of memory, a
strong expansion of feeling takes place this in turn gives rise to
:
a need for intuition and explanation, to satisfy which a process of

picture-making is set in motion. ... In legends the central interest . . .
is in the subject-matter, in the centripetal power, which depends on an
intensification of memory rather than on any naive personification and

colouring. . .
,"
XXVI INTRODUCTION
It is of little consequence to know whether a man

(b)
calledAbraham lived about 2000 B.C., and led a caravan

from Ur or Harran to Palestine, and defeated a great army
from the east. One of the evil effects of the controversial
treatment of such questions is to diffuse the impression that
a great religious value attaches to discussions of this kind.
What it really concerns us to know is the spiritual signi-
ficance of the events, and of the mission of Abraham in
particular. And it is only when we take this point of view
that we do justice to the spirit of the Hebrew tradition.
It is obvious that the central idea of the patriarchal tradi-
tion is the conviction in the mind of Israel that as a nation
it originated in a great religious movement, that the divine
callwhich summoned Abraham from his home and kindred,
and made him a stranger and sojourner on the earth,
imported a new era in God's dealings with mankind, and
gave Israel its mission in the world (Is. 41^*). Is this
conception historically credible ?
Some attempts to find historic points of contact for this

view of Abraham's significance for religion will be looked at
presently ; but their contribution to the elucidation of the
biblical narrative seems to us disappointing in the extreme.
Nor can we unreservedly assent to the common argument
that the mission of Moses would be unintelligible apart
from that of Abraham. It is true, Moses is said to have
appealed to the God of the fathers and if that be a literally
;
exact statement, Moses built on the foundation laid by

Abraham. But that the and ideas of
distinctive institutions
the Yahwe-religion could not have originated with Moses
just as well as with Abraham, is more than we have a right
to affirm. In short, positive proof, such as would satisfy
the canons of historical criticism, of the work of Abraham is
not available. What we can say is, in the first place, that
if he had the importance assigned to him, the fact is just

of the kind that might be expected to impress itself indelibly
on a tradition dating from the time of the event. We have
in it the influence of a great personality, giving birth to the
collective consciousness of a nation ; and this fact is of a
INTRODUCTION XXVll
nature to evoke that centripetal * intensification of memory *
which Hoffding emphasises as the distinguishing mark and

the preserving salt of legend as contrasted with myth. In
the second place, the appearance of a prophetic person-
ality, such as Abraham is represented to have been, is a
phenomenon with many analogies in the history of religion.

The ethical and spiritual idea of God which is at the founda-
tion of the religion of Israel could only enter the world
through a personal organ of divine revelation ; and nothing
Abraham the first of that long series of
forbids us to see in
prophets through whom God has communicated to mankind
a saving knowledge of Himself. The keynote of Abraham's
piety is faith in the unseen, —
faith in the divine impulse
which drove him forth to a land which he was never to
possess and faith in the future of the religion which he
;
thus founded. He moves before us on the page of Scripture

as the man through whom faith, the living principle of true
religion, first became a force in human aff"airs. It is difficult
to think that so powerful a conception has grown out of

nothing. As we read the story, we may well trust the
instinct which tells us that here we are face to
face with
a decisive act of the living God in history, and an act whose
essential significance was never lost in Israelite tradition.
The significance of the Abrahamic migration in relation

to the
g'eneral movements of religious thought in the East the theme of
is
Winckler's interesting pamphlet, Abraham als Babylonier, Joseph als
Aegypter {i(ô^. The elevation of Babylon, in the reign of Hammurabi,
to be the first city of the empire, and the centre of Babylonian culture,
meant, we are told, a revolution in religion, inasmuch as it involved the
deposition of Sin, the old moon-god, from the supreme place in the
pantheon in favour of the Deliverer Marduk,' the tutelary deity of
'
Babylon. Abraham, a contemporary, and an adherent of the older faith,

opposed the reformation and, after vainly seeking support for his
;
protest at Ur and Harran, the two great centres of the worship of Sin,
migrated to Canaan, beyond the limits of Hammurabi's empire, to
worship God after his fashion. How much truth is contained in these
brilliant generalisations it is difficult for an ordinary man to say. In
spite of the ingenuity and breadth of conception with which the theory
is worked out, it is not unfair to suggest that it rests mostly on a
combination of things that are not in the Bible with things that are not
in the monuments. Indeed, the only positive point of contact between
the two data of the problem is the certainly remarkable fact that tradi-
—
XXVlll INTRODUCTION
tion does connect Abraham with two chief centres of the Babylonian
moon-worship. But what we chiefly desiderate is some evidence that
the worship of the moon-g-od had greater affinities with monotheism
than the worship of Marduk, the god of the vernal sun. [The attempt
to connect Joseph with the abortive monotheistic reform of Chuenaten
—
(Amenophis iv.) is destitute of plausibilit)-.] To a similar effect Jeremias,
ATLOP', 327 ff. "A reform movement of protest against the religious
:
degeneration of the ruling classes" was the motive of the migration

(333), perhaps connected with the introduction of a new
astronomical
era, the Taurus-epoch (which, by the way, had commenced nearly 1000
years before cf. 66). The movement assumed the form of a migration
!
—
a Hegira under Abraham as Mahdi, who preached his doctrine as he
went, made converts in Harran, Egypt, Gerar, Damascus, and else-
where, finally establishing the worship of Yahwe at the sanctuaries of
Palestine. This is to write a new Abrahamic legend, considerably
different from the old.
§ 5. Preservation and collection of the traditions.
In all popular narration the natural unit is the short

story, which does not too severely tax the attention of a
simple audience, and which retains its outline and features
unchanged as it passes from mouth to mouth.* A large
part of the Book of Genesis consists of narratives of this
description, —single tales, of varying length but mostly
very short, each complete in itself, with a clear beginning
and a satisfying conclusiorr. As we read the book, unities
'of this kind detach themselves from their context, and

round themselves into independent wholes and it is only ;
by studying them in their isolation, and each in its own

light, that we can fully appreciate their charm and under-
stand, in some measure, the circumstances of their origin.
The older stratum of the primaeval history, and of the

history of Abraham, is almost entirely composed of single
incidents of this kind : think of the story of the Fall, of
Cain and Abel, of Noah's drunkenness, of the Tower of
Babel; and again of Abraham in Egypt, of the flight or
expulsion of Hagar, of the sacrifice of Isaac, etc., etc.
When we pass the middle of the book, the mode of narra-
* Cf. Gu. p. XXXII, to whose fine appreciation of the ** Kunstform

" this
der Sagen § is greatly indebted.
INTRODUCTION XXIX
tion begins to change. The biography of Jacob is much

more a consecutive narrative than that of Abraham but ;
even here the separate scenes stand out in their original

distinctness of outline (^.^. the transference of the birth-
right, Jacob at Bethel, the meeting wîth Rachel at the well,
the vi^restling at Peniel, the outrage on Dinah, etc.). It is
not till we come to the history of Joseph that the principle
of biographical continuity gains the upper hand. Joseph's
story is, indeed, made up of a number of
but incidents ;
they are made to merge into one another, so that each

derives its interest from its relation to the whole, and ends
(except the last) on a note of suspense and expectation
rather than of rest. This no doubt is due to the greater
popularity and more frequent repetition of the stories of
Jacob and Joseph but at the same time it bears witness
;
to a considerable development of the art of story-telling,

an4 one in which we cannot but detect some degree of
professional aptitude and activity.
The short stories of Genesis, even those of the most
elementary type, are exquisite works of art, almost as
unique and perfect in their own kind as the parables of our
Lord are in theirs. They are certainly not random pro-
ductions of fireside gossip, but bear the unmistakable
stamp of individual genius (Gu. p. xxx). Now, between
the inception of the legends (which is already at some
distance from the traditional facts) and the written form
in which they lie before us, there stretches an interval
which is perhaps in some instances to be measured by
centuries. Hence two questions arise: (i) What was the
fate of the stories during this interval? Were they cast
adrift on the stream of popular talk, — with nothing to
secure their preservation save the perfection of their
original form, — and afterwards collected from the lips of
the people ? Or were they taken in hand from the first by
a special class of men who made it their business to con-
serve the integrity of the narratives, and under whose
auspices the mass of traditional material was gradually
welded into its present shape ? And (2), how is this whole
XXX INTRODUCTION
process of transmission and consolidation related to the

use of writing? Was the work of collecting and syste-
matising the traditions primarily a literary one, or had it
already commenced at the stage of oral narration ?

To such questions, of course, no final answers can be
given, (i) It is not possible to discriminate accurately
between the modifications which a narrative would undergo
through constant repetition, and changes deliberately made
by responsible persons. On the whole, the balance of pre-
sumption seems to us to incline towards the hypothesis of
professional oversight of some sort, exercised from a very
early time. On this assumption, too, we can best under-
stand the formation of legendary cycles ; for it is evident
that no effective grouping of tradition could take place in
the course of promiscuous popular recital. (2) As to the

use of writing, it is natural to suppose that it came in first
of all as an aid to the memory of the narrator, and that as

a knowledge of literature extended the practice of oral
recitation gradually died out, and left the written record in
sole possession of the field. way we may imagine In this
that books would be formed, which would be handed down
from to son, annotated, expanded, revised, and
father
copied and so collections resembling our oldest pentateuchal
;
documents might come into existence.*

Here we come upon one important fact which affords
some guidance in the midst of these speculations. The
bulk of the Genesis-tradition lies before us in two closely
parallel and practically contemporaneous recensions (see
p. xliii ff. below). Since there is every reason to believe that

these recensions were made independently of each other, it
follows that the early traditions had been codified, and a

sort of national epos had taken shape, prior to the com-
pilation of these documents. When we find, further, that
each of them contains evidence of earlier collections and
older strata of tradition, we must assume a very consider-
able period of time to have elapsed between the formation
* See Gilbert Murray, Iîse of the Greek Epic, p. 92 ff.

;
INTRODUCTION XXXI
of a fixed corpus of tradition and the composition of J and

E. Beyond this, however, we are in the region of vaguest
conjecture. We cannot tell for certain what kind of
authority had presided over the combination of the legends,
nor whether it was first done in the oral or the literary
stage of translation. We may think of the priesthoods of
the leading sanctuaries as the natural custodians of the
tradition * the sanctuaries were at least the obvious re-
:
positories of the cult-legends pertaining to them. But we

cannot indicate any sanctuary of such outstanding national
importance as to be plausibly regarded as the centre of a
national epic.f Or we may assign a conspicuous share in
the work to the prophetic guilds which, in
the time of
Samuel, were foci of enthusiasm for the national cause, and
might conceivably have devoted themselves to the propaga-
tion of the national tradition. Or, finally, we may assume,
with Gu., that there existed in Israel, as among the Arabs,
guilds of professional story-tellers, exercising their vocation
at public festivals and such like gatherings, for the enter-
tainment and instruction of the people. The one certainty
is that a considerable time must be allowed for the complex
mental activities which lie behind our earliest literary
sources. It is true that the rise of a national epos pre-
supposes a strongly developed consciousness of national
unity but in Israel the national ideal was much older than
;
its realisation in the form of a state, and therefore we have

no reason for placing the unification of the traditions later
than the founding of the monarchy. From the age of
Samuel at least all the essential conditions were present
and a lower limit than that will hardly meet the require-
ments of the case.
We may here refer to a matter of g-reat importance in its bearing

on the possibility of accurate oral transmission of the legends viz. :
the recent effort of Sievers {Metrische Studien, 1904-5) to resolve

ii.,
the whole of Genesis into verse. If his theory should be established,
*Cf. Sta. ZATW, i. 347 fF.

t Pro., however (392 f.), suggests Shiloh as the place where the
national legend was developed.
XXXll INTRODUCTION
it would not merely furnish the most potent instrument of literary

analysis conceivable, but it would render credible a very high degree
of verbal exactitude during the period of unwritten tradition. The
work of Sievers viewed with qualified approval both by Gu. (p.
is
xxixf.) and Pro. (210 ff.), and it is certain to evoke interesting dis-
cussion. The present writer, who is anything but a Metriker von
*
Fach,' does not feel competent to pronounce an opinion on its merits.

Neither reading aloud, nor counting of syllables, has convinced him
that the scansion holds, or that Hebrew rhythm in general is so rigor-
ously exact as the system demands. The prejudice against divorcing
poetic form from poetic feeling and diction (of the latter there is no
trace in what have been considered the prose parts of Genesis) is not
lightty to be overcome and the frequent want of coincidence between
;
breaks in sense and pauses in rhythm disturbs the mind, besides

violating what used to be thought a fundamental feature of Hebrew
poetry. Grave misgivings are also raised by the question whether the
Massoretic theory of the syllable is (as Sievers assumes) a reliable
guide to the pronunciation and rhythm of the early Hebrew language.
It seems therefore hazardous to apply the method to the solution of
literary problems, whether by emendation of the text, or by disentangle-
ment of sources.
B» Structure and Composition of the Book.
§ 6. Plan and Divisions.
That the Book of Genesis forms a literary unity has

been a commonplace of criticism since the maiden work of
Ewald * put an end to the Fragmentary Hypothesis of
* Die Komposition der Genesis, kritisch untersucht (1823). — In that

essay Ewald fell into the natural error of confusing unity of plan with
—
unity of authorship, an error, however, which he retracted eight
years later {SK, 1831, 595 ff.), in favour of a theory (virtually identical
with the so-called Supplementary Hypothesis) which did full justice to
the unity and skilful disposition of the book, while recognising it to be
the result of an amalgamation of several documents. The distinction
has never since been lost sight of; and all subsequent theories of the
composition of Genesis have endeavoured to reconcile the assumption
of a diversity of sources with the indisputable fact of a clearly designed
arrangement of the material. The view which is generally held does
so in this way three main documents, followmg substantially the
:
same historical order, are held to have been combined by one or more
redactors one of these documents, being little more than an epitome
;
of the history, was specially fitted to supply a framework into which

the rest of the narrative could be fitted, and was selected by the
redactor for this purpose ; hence the plan which we discover in the
INTRODUCTION XXXlll
Geddes and Vater. The ruling idea of the book, as has

already been briefly indicated (p. ii), is to show how
Israel, the people of God, attained its historical position
among the nations of the world ; in particular, how its
peculiar relation to God was rooted in the moral greatness

and piety of its three common ancestors, Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob and how through God's promise to them it had
;
secured an exclusive right to the soil of Canaan."^ This

purpose, however, appears less in the details of the history
(which are obviously governed by a variety of interests)
than in the scope and arrangement of the work as a whole,
especially in the framework which knits it together, and
'
'
reveals the plan to which the entire narrative is accommo-

dated. The method consistently followed is the progressive I
isolation of the main line of Israel's descent by brief genea-\/
logical summaries of the collateral branches of the human ><
family which diverge from it at successive points. /
A clue to the main divisions of the book is thus furnished by the

editor's practice of inserting- the collateral genealogies {TdlMoth) at the
close of the principal sections (i iô-'o ; 25^^-18 36).!
.
This yields a natural
and convenient division into four approximately equal parts, namely :
I. The Primaeval History of mankind i.-xi.J :
II. The History of Abraham xii. i-xxv. 18.

:
III. The History of Jacob: xxv. 19-xxxvi. 43.

IV. The Story of Joseph and his brethren xxxvii.-l. :
book is really the design of one particular v^rriter. It is obvious that

such a conception quite adequately explains all the literary unity which
the Book of Genesis ejchibits.
* See Tuch, XVI ff.
t The genealogies of 4""2^' and 22^*24 do not count these are

^s^-
:
not T6lM6th, and do not belong to the document used as a framework.

Ch. 10 (the Table of peoples) would naturally stand at the close of a
section but it had to be displaced from its proper position before ii^**
;
to find room for the story of the Dispersion (11^"^). It may be said,
however, that the TolMdth of Adam (ch. 5) should mark a main
division ;and that is probably correct, though for practical purposes
it is better to ignore the subdivision and treat the primaeval history as
one section.
X Strictly speaking, the first part ends perhaps at ii^? or ô but the ;
actual division of chapters has its recommendation, and it is not worth

while to depart from it.
€
—
XXXIV INTRODUCTION
A detailed analysis of the contents is given at the commencement of

the various sections.
It is commonly held by writers on Genesis that the editor has

marked the headings of the various sections by the formula nnyin '"'/n[i],
which occurs eleven times in the book: 2^*5^*6^ 10^ 11^" 11^ 2^^"^ 25^^
36^ 36^ 37^. Transposing 2^ to the beginning, and disregarding 36'
(both arbitrary proceedings), we obtain ten parts and these are
;
actually adopted by De. as the divisions of his commentary. But the

scheme is of no practical utility, — for it is idle to speak of nô-ae qj.
25'^"^^ as sections of Genesis on the same footing as 25^^-3528 or 37^^-50^^;
and theoretically it is open to serious objection. Here it will suflfice to
point out the incongruity that, while the histories of Noah and Isaac
fallunder their own Toledoih, those of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph fall
under the T6lM6iJi of their respective fathers. See, further, p. 40 f.
§ 7. The Sources of Genesis.
The Book of Genesis has always been the strategic

position of Pentateuchal literary criticism. It was the
examination of this book that led Astruc, in 1753,! to the
important discovery which was the first positive achievement
in this Having noticed the signifi-
department of research.
cant alternation of the divine names in different sections of
the book, and having convinced himself that the phenomenon
could not be explained otherwise than as due to the literary
habit of two writers, Astruc proceeded to divide the bulk
of Genesis into two documents, one distinguished by the
use of the name Q^n^?^, and the other by the use of ^^J\\ ;
while a series of fragmentary passages where this criterion

failed total number of his memoires up to
him brought the
twelve. Subsequent investigations served to emphasise
the magnitude of this discovery, which Eichhorn % speedily
put on a broader basis by a characterisation of the style,
contents, and spirit of the two documents. Neither Astruc
nor Eichhorn carried the analysis further than Ex. 2,
partly because they were influenced by the traditional opinion
(afterwards abandoned by Eichhorn) of Mosaic authorship,
* T\rh\r\ nap m.
t Conjectures sur les memoires originaux, dont il paroU que Moyse
s' est servi pour composer le livre de la Genkse.
X Einleitung in das AT, 1780-3 (ist ed.).

INTRODUCTION XXXV
and did not expect to find traces of composition in the

history contemporaneous with Moses. We shall see
presently that there is a deeper reason why this particular
clue to the analysis could not at first be traced beyond the
early chapters of Exodus.
While the earlier attempts to discredit Astruc's discovery took the

directioa of showing- that the use of the two divine names is determined
by a difference of meaning- which made the one or the other more
suitable in a particular connexion, the more recent opposition entrenches
itself mostly behind the uncertainties of the text, and maintains that the
Vns. (especially <&) show the MT to be so unreliable that no analysis of
documents can be based on its data see Klostermann, Der Pentateuch
:
(1893), p. 20 if. Dahse, ARW, vi. (1903), 305 ff.

; Redpath, AJTh, viii.
;
(1904), 286 ff. Eerdmans, Comp. d. Gen. (1908), 348".

; Wiener, BS
;
(1909), ii9ff. —
It cannot be denied that the facts adduced by these
writers import an element of uncertainty into the analysis, so far as it
depends on the criterion of the divine names but the significance of the
;
facts is greatly overrated, and the alternative theories propounded to

account for the textual phenomena are improbable in the extreme, (i)
So far as I have observed, no attention is paid to what is surely a very
important factor of the problem, the proportion of divergences to
agreements as between <& and MT. In Genesis the divine name
occurs in one or other form about 340 times (in MT, ni.T 143 1. + u-rhn
177 t. + 'k '' 20 1.). The total deviations registered by Redpath
(296 fF.) number 50; according to Eerdmans (34 f) they are 49; i.e.
little more than one-seventh of the whole. Is it so certain that that
degree of divergence invalidates a documentary analysis founded on
so much larger a field of undisputed readings ? (2) In spite of the
confident assertions of Dahse (309) and Wiener (131 f.) there is not a
single instance in which (& is demonstrably right against MT. It is
*
'
readily conceded that it is probably right in a few cases but there are
;
two general presumptions in favour of the superior fidelity of the

Massoretic tradition. Not only {a) is the chance of purely clerical
confusion between /cs and Ws greater than between nin' and wrha, or even
between '' and 'n, and {b) a change of divine names more apt to occur in
translation than in transcription, but (c) the distinction between a
proper name mn' and a generic D'n'?N is much less likely to have been
overlooked in copying than that between two appellatives Kvpios and
debt. An instructive example is 4^^, where (& Kvpios 6 6e6s is 'demon-
strably' wrong. (3) In the present state of textual criticism it is
impossible to determine in particular cases what is the original reading.
We can only proceed by the imperfect method of averages. Now it is
significant that while in Gen. fflr substitutes Beds for mn' 21 times, and
Kdpios 6 deos 19 times (40 in all), there are only 4 cases of Kvpios and 6 of
Kijpios 6 Beds for D'hVn the proportions being very much the
(10 in all :
same for the whole Pent.).

(& thus reveals a decided (and very natural)
preference for the ordinary Greek Beds over the less familiar Kijpios.
XXXVl INTRODUCTION
Dahse urges (p. 308) that MT betrays an equally marked preference

for and has frequently substituted it for cnhn but that is much less
niiT, ;
intellig-ible. For although the pronunciation of mn' as "pn might have

removed the fear of the Tetragrammaton, and that would be a very —
—
good reason for leaving mri" where it was, it suggests no motive at all
for inserting it where it was not. There is force, however, in Gray's
remark on a particular case {Num. p. 311), that "wherever [6] ks
appears in it deserves attention as a possible indication of the
ffir
original text." (4) The documentary theory furnishes a better explana-

tion of the alternation of the names than any other that has been
propounded. Redpath's hypothesis of a double recension of the Pent.,
one mainly Yahwistic and the other wholly (?) Elohistic, of which one
was used only where the other was illegible, would explain anything,
and therefore explains nothing least of all does it explain the frequent
;
coincidence of h)'pothetical illegibility with actual changes of style,

phraseology, and standpoint. Dahse (following out a hint of
Klostermann) accounts for the phenomena of MT (and xxx) by the desire
to preserve uniformity within the limits of each several pericope of the
Synagogue lectionary ; but why some pericopes should be Yahwistic
and others Elohistic, it is not easy to conceive. He admits that his
view cannot be carried through in detail yet it is just of the kind ;
which, if true, ought to be verifiable in detail. One has but to read

consecutively the first three chapters of Genesis, and observe how the
sudden change in the divine name new vocabulary,
coincides with a
representation, and atmosphere, in order to feel how paltry all
spiritual
such artificial explanations are in comparison with the hypothesis that
the names are distinctive of different documents. The experience
repeats itself, not perhaps quite so convincingly, again and again
throughout the book and though there are cases where the change of
;
manner is not obvious, still the theory is vindicated in a sufficient

number of instances to be worth carrying through, even at the expense
of a somewhat complicated analysis, and a very few demands (see
p. xlviiif.) on the services of a redactor to resolve isolated problems.
(5) It was frankly admitted by Kuenen long ago (see Ond. i. pp. 59, 62)
that the test of the divine names is not by itself a sufficient criterion of
source or authorship, and that critics might sometimes err through
a too exclusive reliance on this one phenomenon.* Nevertheless the
opinion can be maintained that the MT
is far superior to the Vns., and
that its use of the names is a valuable clue to the separation of documents.
Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction and, however surprising it
;
may appear to some, we can reconcile our minds to the belief that the
* It should be clearly understood that as regards P and J the dis-

tinction of divine names is but one of many marks of diverse authorship
(see Dri. LOT^,
ff"., where more than ./?/?>' such distinguishing
131
criteria are given),and that after Ex. 6, where this particular criterion
disappears, the diff"erence is quite as obvious as before. As regards J
and E, the analysis, though sometimes dependent on the divine names
alone, is generally based on other diff'erences as well.
INTRODUCTION XXXVll
MT does reproduce with substantial accuracy the characteristics of the

original autographs. At present that assumption can only be tested by
the success or failure of the analysis based on it. It is idle to speculate
on what would have happened if Astruc and his successors had been
compelled to operate with fflr instead of MT
but it is a rational surmise
;
that in that case criticism would still have arrived, by a more laborious
route, at very much the positions it occupies to-day.
The next great step towards the modern documentary

theory of the Pent, was Hupfeld's* demonstration that cvn^Jj^
is not peculiar to one document, but to two ; so that under

the name Elohist two diflferent writers had previously been
confused. It is obvious, of course, that in this inquiry the
divinenames afford no guidance; yet by observing finer
marks of style, and the connexion of the narrative, Hupfeld
succeeded in proving to the ultimate satisfaction of all
critics that there was a second Elohistic source (now called

E), closely parallel and akin to the Yahwistic (J), and that
both J and E had once been independent consecutive
narratives. An important part of the work was a more
accurate delimitation of the first Elohist (now called the
Priestly Code P), whose outlines were then first drawn
:
with a clearness to which later investigation has had little

to add. t
Though Hupfeld's work was confined to Genesis, it had results of the

utmost consequence for the criticism of the Pent, as a whole. In par-
Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung (1853).
*
Hupfeld's discovery had partly been anticipated by Ilgen {Urkunden

des ersten Bucks von Moses [1798]). Between Eichhorn and Hupfeld,
criticismhad passed through two well-defined phases the Fragmentary :
Hypothesis (see p. xxxiif. above) and the Supplementary Hypothesis,

of which the classical exposition is Tuch's fine commentary on Genesis
(1858 reissued by Arnold in 1871).
; The latter theory rested partly on
—
a prejudice that the framework of the Pent, was necessarily supplied
by its oldest source partly on the misapprehension which Hupfeld
;
dispelled ; and partly on the truth that Yahwistic sections are so inter-
laced with Elohistic that the former could plausibly be regarded as on
the whole supplementary to the latter. Though Tuch's commentary
did not appear till 1858, the theory had really received its death-blow
from Hupfeld five years before.

t See Noldeke, Untersuchu7igen zur Kritik des AT, 1869, pp. 1-144.
It is worthy of mention here that this great scholar, after long resisting
the theory of the late origin of P, has at last declared his acceptance of
the position of We. (see 2Â, 1908, 203).
XXXVlll INTRODUCTION
ticular, It brought to light a fact which at once explains why Genesis
presents a simpler problem to analysis than the rest of the Pent,, and
furnishes a final proof that the avoidance of m.T by two of the sources
was not accidental, but arose from a theory of religious development:
held and expressed by both writers. For both P (Ex. 6^^-) and E (Ex.
îsff.^
connect the revelation of the Tetragrammaton with the mission of
Moses while the former states emphatically that God was not known
;
by that name to the patriarchs.* Consistency demanded that these

writers should use the generic name for Deity up to this point while J, ;
who was bound by no such theory, could use mn' from the first, f From
Ex. 6 onwards P regularly uses nirr E's usage fluctuates between 'k
;
and '' (perhaps a sign of different strata within the document), so that
the criterion no longer yields a sure clue to the analysis.
It does not lie within the scope of this Introduction to

trace the extension of these lines of cleavage through the
other books of the Hexateuch ; and of the reflex results of
the criticism of the later books on that of Genesis only two
can here be mentioned. One is the recognition of the
unique position and character of Deuteronomy in the Pent.,
and the dating of its promulgation in the eighteenth year of
Josiah.J Although this has hardly any direct influence on
the criticism of Genesis, it is an important landmark in the
Pentateuch problem, as furnishing a fixed date by reference
to which the age of the other documents can partly be deter-
mined. The other point is the question of the date of P.
The preconception in favour of the antiquity of this docu-
ment (based for the most part on the fact that it really forms
the framework of the Pent.) was nearly universal among
scholars down to the publication of We.'s Geschichte Israels^
i., in 1878; but it had already been shown to be groundless
by Graf § and Kuenen in 1866-69.
* A curious attempt to turn the edge of this argument will be found

in the art. of H. M. Wiener referred to above {BS, 1909, 158 flf.).
+ For a
partial exception, see on 4^.
X De Wette, Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das ^7" (1806-7) 5 Riehm,
Gesetxgehung Moses im Lande Moah (1854) al. ;
§ Die geschichtliche Biicher des ATs (1866). Graf did not at first see
itnecessary to abandon the earlier date of the narratives of P for an ;
account of his subsequent change of opinion in correspondence with

Kuenen, as well as the anticipations of his final theory by Vatke, Reuss,
and others, we must refer to Kue. Hex. xixflf., or Ho.'s Einleitung^
especially p. 64 ff.
INTRODUCTION XXXIX
This revolutionary change was brought about by a comparison

of the layers of legislation in the later Pent, books with one another,
and with the stages of Israel's religious history as revealed in the
earlier historical books; from which it appeared that the laws be-
longing to P were later than Deut., and that their codification took
place during and after, and their promulgation after, the Exile,
There was hesitation at first in extending this conclusion to the
narratives of P, especially those of them in Genesis and Ex. i-ii.
But when the problem was fairly faced, it was perceived, not only
that P Genesis presented no obstacle to the theory, but that in
in
many respects its narrative was more intelligible as the latest than
as the oldest stratum of the book.
The chief positions at which literary criticism has arrived

with regard to Genesis are, therefore, briefly these (i) The :
oldest sources are J and E, closely parallel documents, both

dating from the best period of Hebrew literature, but dis-
tinguished from each other by their use of the divine name,
by slight idiosyncrasies of style, and by quite perceptible
differences of representation. (2) These sources were com-
bined into a composite narrative (JE) by a redactor (R-^^),
whose hand can be detected in several patches of a literary
complexion diff"ering from either of his authorities. He has
done his work so deftly that it is frequently difficult, and
sometimes impossible, to sunder the documents. It is
generally held that this redaction took place before the com-
position of Deut., so that a third stage in the history of the
Pent, would be represented by the symbols JE -f- D. (3) The
remaining source P is a product of the Exilic or post-Exilic
age, though embodies older material.
it Originally an
independent work, its formal and schematic character fitted
it to be the framework of the Pentateuchal narrative and ;
this has determined the procedure of the final redactor

(R^^^), by whom excerpts from JE have been used to fill up
the skeleton outline which P gave of the primitive and
patriarchal history.
The above statement will, it is hoped, suffice to put the
reader in possession of the main points of the critical position
occupied in the Commentary. The evidence by which they
are supported will partly be given in the next four §§ but, ;
for a full discussion of the numerous questions involved,

xl INTRODUCTION
we must here refer to works specially devoted to the

**
subject.
Some idea of the extent to which conservative opinion has been

modified by criticism, may be gathered from the concessions made by
Professor Orr, whose book, The Prohlem of the Old Testament., de-
servedly ranks as the ablest assault on the critical theory of the Pent,
that has recently appeared in English. Dr. Orr admits (a) that Astruc
was right in dividing a considerable part of Genesis into Elohistic and
Yahwistic sections (5) that Eichhorn's characterisation of the style of
;
the two documents has, in the main, stood the test of time
'
(c) that '
;
Hupfeld's observation of a difference in the Elohistic sections of Genesis

•
in substance corresponds with facts and {d) that even Graf and We.
' ;
*
mark an advance,' in making P a relatively later stratum of Genesis
than JE (pp. 196-201). When we see so many defences evacuated one
after another, we begin to wonder what is left to fight -about, and how
a theory which was cradled in infidelity, and has the vice of its origin
clinging to all its subsequent developments (Orr, 195 f.), is going to be
prevented from doing its deadly work of spreading havoc over the
'believing view' of the OT. Dr. Orr thinks to stem the torrent by
adopting two relatively conservative positions from Klostermann.
(i)The first is the denial of the distinction between J and E (216 ff.).
As soon as Hupf. had effected the separation of E from P, it ought to
have been perceived, he seems to suggest, that the sections thus disen-
tangled are really parts of J (217). And yet, even to Dr. Orr, the matter
is not quite so simple as this, and he makes another concession. The
distinction in the divine names remains and so he is driven to admit that
;
J and E were, not indeed independent works,

but different literary re-
censions of one and the same old work (229). What is meant by two
versions in circulation alongside of each other, which never had cur-
rency as separate documents, is a point on which Dr. Orr owes his
readers' some explanation if there were two recensions they certainly
;
existed separately and he cannot possibly know how far their agree-
;
ment extended. The issue between him and his critical opponents is,
nevertheless, perfectly clear they hold that J and E are independent
:
recensions of a common body of tradition, while he maintains that they
* The following may be mentioned Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onder-

:
zoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Ver-
bonds^, i. (1885) [Eng. The Hexateuch (1886)]; and Gesammelte
tr.,
Ahhandlungen (transl. German by Budde) Wellhausen, Com-

into ;
position des Hexateuchs, etc. (-1889) and Prolegomena zur Geschichte

;
Israels (^1905) [Eng. tr. 1885]; Westphal, Les Sources du Pent. (1888,
1892) Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften. des ATs{îSgo) Robert-
; ;
son Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (^1892) Driver, ;
Introduction to the Literature of the 07^(81909) Holzinger, Einleitung ;
in den Hex. (1893); Cornill, Einleitung ("1908); Konig, Einl. (1893);

Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Comp. of the Hex. (1902) [ = vol. i. of
The Hexateuch (1900)].
INTRODUCTION xli
were recensions of a single document, differing- in nothing- but the use of

mn' or cnhtt. What reasons, then, hinder us from deserting the critical
view, and coming over to the side of Dr. Orr? In the Jirst pla.ce, the
difference between J and E
not confined to the divine names. The
is
linguistic evidence is very much

clearer than Dr. Orr represents ; and
differences of conception, though slight, are real. It is all very well to
quote from candid and truth-loving- opponents admissions of the close
resemblance of the narratives, and the diflSculty and uncertainty of the
analysis, in particular instances, and to suggest that these admissions
amount to a throwing- up of the case but no man with an independent
;
grasp of the subject will be imposed on by so cheap a device. In the

second place, J and E consist largely of duplicate narratives of the same
event. It is true, this argument is lost on Dr. Orr, who has no diffi-
culty in conceiving- that Abraham twice told the same lie about his wife,
and that his son Isaac followed his example, with very similar results
in the three cases. But he will hardly affect to be surprised that other
men take a more natural view,* and regard the stories as traditional
variations of the same theme. —
(2) The second position is that P was
never a distmct or self-subsisting document, but only a "framework"
enclosing- the contents of JE (341-377). Ag-ain we have to ask what
Dr. Orr means by a ' framework,' which, in his own words, "has also,
at certain points, its original, and, in parts, considerable contributions
to bring to the history " (272) and how he can possibly tell that these
;
original and considerable contributions did not come from an inde-

pendent work. The facts that it is now closely interwoven with JE,
and that there are g-aps in its narrative (even if these gaps were
more considerable than there is any reason to suppose), prove nothing-
except that has passed through the hands of a redactor. That its
it
history presupposes a knowledge of JE, and is too meagre to be in-

telligible apart from it, is amply explained by the critical view that
the author wished to concentrate attention on the great religious
turning-points in the history (the Creation, the Flood, the Covenant
with Abraham, the Blessing of Jacob by Isaac, the origin of the name
Israel, the Settlement in Egypt, etc.), and dismissed the rest with a bare
chronological epitome. When we add that on all these points, as well
as others, the original and considerable contributions are (Dr. Orr's
*
'
protestations notwithstanding) radically divergent from the older tradi-

tion, we have every proof that could be desired that P was an independent
document, and not a mere supplementary expansion of an earlier com-
Ivii ff. below).
pilation (see, further, p. But now, supposing Dr. Orr to
have made good his contentions, what advantage has he gained?
So far as we can see, none whatever He does indeed go on to assert
!
a preference for the term collaboration as expressing the kind and

' '
'
manner of the activity which brought the Pentateuchal books into their
present shape' (375).! But that preference might just as easily have
* So even Sayce, Early History of the Hebre-ws (1897), 62 f , 64 f.

t It is a grave injustice to Di. to associate his name, however re-
motely, with this theory of 'collaboration (527). What Di. is speaking
'
:
Xlll INTRODUCTION
been exercised on the literary results of the critical theory. And Dr.
full
Orr deceives himself he imag-ines that that flimsy hypothesis will

if
either neutralise the force of the arguments that have carried criticism
past the barren eccentricities of Klostermann, or save what he chooses
to consider the essential Mosaicity of the Pent
*
'
Professor Eerdmans of Leiden, in a series of recent publications, has

announced his secession from the Graf-Wellhausen school, and com-
menced to lay down the programme of a new era in OT criticism {Hihh.
Journ. vii. [1909], 813 ff,). His Komposition der C^^w^^z^ (1908) gives a
foretaste of his literary method and certainly the procedure is drastic
;
enough. The divine names are absolutely misleading as a criterion of

authorship ;and the distinction between P and JE goes overboard
along with that between J and E. Criticism is thus thrown back into
its original chaos, out of which Ee. proceeds to evoke a new kosmos.
His one positive principle is the recognition of a polytheistic background

behind the traditions, which has been obscured in various degrees by
the later monotheistic interpretation. By the help of this principle, he
distinguishes four stages in the development of the tradition. (1) The
first is represented by remnants of the original undiluted polytheism,
where Yahwe does not appear at all e.g. 35^"'^ the Israel-recension of
; ;
the Joseph-stories ; the groundwork of chs. i. 20. 28^"^ 6^-9^'. (2)

Legends which recognise Yahwe as one among many gods ; 4. (^^-"^ 22.
27. 28^^"^^ 29. 30. 31. 39. (3) In the third stage, polytheistic legends are
transferred to Yahwe as the only God 2. 3. 6'^'^ 7^'^ 320-22 11I-9 jg^ jg^ j^
:
24. 25'^'^* 26. (4) Late additions of purely monotheistic complexion

15^"^ 17. 35^"^® 48^"^. Now, we are quite prepared to find traces of all
these stages of religion in the Genesis-narratives, if they can be proved ;
and, indeed, all of them except the second are recognised by recent
critics. But while any serious attempt to determine the age of the
legends from their contents rather than from their literary features is to
be welcomed, it is difficult to perceive the distinctions on which Ee.'s
classification based, or to admit that, for example, ch. 17 is one whit
is
more monotheistic than 20 or 27, or 24. In any case, on Ee.'s own

showing, the classification affords no clue to the composition and
history of the book. In order to get a start, he has to fall back on
the acknowledged literary distinction betwêen a Jacob-recension and
an Israel-recension of the Joseph-narratives (on this see p. 439 be-
low). Since the former begins npy nn'^n .iVn, it is considered to have
formed part of a comprehensive history of the patriarchs, commencing
with Adam (5^), set in a framework of Toledoth. This is the ground-
work of Genesis. It is destitute of monotheistic colouring (it contains,
of in the words cited is simply the question whether the three documents,
P, E, and J, were combined by a single redaction, or whether two of
them were first put together and afterwards united with the third.
Dr. Orr, on the other hand, is thinking of "the labours of original
composers^working with a common aim and towards a common end "
(375). If everything beyond this is conjectural (376), there is nothing
but conjecture in the whole construction.
INTRODUCTION xlii
however, leg"ends of all the first three classes !), Yah we being- to the
compiler simply one of the g"ods and must therefore have orig-inated ;
before the Exile a lower limit is 700 B.C. This collection was soon
:
enlarg-ed by the addition of leg-ends not less ancient than its own and ;
by the insertion of the Israel-recension, which as polytheistic in

is
character as the 7o/^côM-collection ! The monotheistic manipulation

of the work set in after Deuteronomy but how many editions it went
;
through we cannot tell for certain. The last thorough-going reviser

was the author of ch. 17 ; but additions were made even later than that,
etc. etc. A
more bewildering hypothesis it has never been our lot to
examine and we cannot pretend to believe that it contains the rudi-
;
ments of a successful analysis. There is much to be learned from Ee.'s

work, which is full of acute observations and sound reasoning in detail ;
but as a theory of the composition of Genesis it seems to us utterly at

fault. What with Wi. and Jer., and Che., and now Ee., OT scholars
have a good many new eras dawning on them just now. Whether any
of them will shine unto the perfect day, time will show.
§ 8. The collective authorship ofJ and E,
In J and E we have, according- to what has been said

above, the two oldest written recensions of a tradition which
had at one time existed in the oral form. When we com-
pare the two documents, the first thing that strikes us is
their close correspondence in outline and contents. The

only important difference is that E's narrative does not seem
to have embraced the primitive period, but to have com-
menced with Abraham. But from the point where E strikes
into the current of the history (at ch. 20, with a few earlier
traces in ch. 15), there are few incidents in the one document
to which the other does not contain a parallel.* What is
* The precise extent to which this is true depends, of course, on the

validity of the finer processes of analysis, with regard to which there is
room for difference of opinion. On the analysis followed in the com-
mentary, the only episodes in E to which there is no trace of a parallel
in J, after ch. 15, are the sacrifice of Isaac, 22; Esau's selling of his
:
birthright, 252^"^^ (?) the theophany of Mahanaim, 32"* ^ ; the purchase of

;
land at Shechem, 33^^"^" ; and the various incidents in 2S^'^ "'^°- Those
peculiar to J are : the theophany at Mamre, 18 the destruction of
;
Sodom, igi-^s ; Lot and his daughters, 1930-38 .

^he birth of Jacob and
Esau, 25^^"^^ ; Jacob's meeting with Rachel,
the Isaac-narratives, 26 ;
292-14 ; Reuben and the love-apples, 30^^^- the incest of Reuben, 352'- 22a ;
.
Judahand Tamar, 38 Joseph's temptation, 39^"'" the cup in Benjamin's

; ;
sack, 44 Joseph's agrarian policy, 47^3-26

; g^^^j ^^^ genealogies of (?) .
.;
xliv INTRODUCTION
much more remarkable, and indeed surprising, is that the

manne?^ of na.rr3.t10n changes in the two documents part passu
Thus the transition from the loose connexion of the Abraham
legends to the more consecutive biography of Jacob, and
then to the artistic unity of the Joseph-stories (see p. xxviii f.),
is equally noticeable in J and in E. It is this extraordinarily
close parallelism, both in matter and form, which proves

that both documents drew from a common body of tradition,
and even suggests that that tradition had already been partly
"'*
reduced to writing.
Here we come back, from the side of analysis, to a
question which was left unsettled in § 5 the question, ;
namely, of the process by which the oral tradition was con-

solidated and reduced to writing. It has been shown with
great probability that both J and E are composite documents^

in which minor legendary cycles have been incorporated, and
different strata of tradition are embedded. This presupposes
a development of the tradition within the circle represented
by each document, and leads eventually to the theory ad-
vocated by most recent critics, that the symbols J and E
must be taken to express, not two individual writers but two
schools, i.e., two series of narrators, animated by common
conceptions, following a common literary method, and trans-
mitting a common form of the tradition from one generation
to another.
The phenomena which suggest this hypothesis are fully described in

the body of the commentary, and need only be recapitulated here. In
J, composite structure has

been most clearly made out in the Primseval
History (chs. i-ii), where at least two, and probably more, strands of
narrative can be distinguished (pp. 1-4). Gu. seems to have shown that
in 12-25 two cycles of Abraham-legends have been interwoven (p. 240)
also that in 25 ff. the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob- Laban legends were
originally independent of each other this last, however, applies to J
:
and E alike, so that the fusion had probably taken place in the
common tradition which lies behind both. Further, chs. 34 and 38
* One is almost tempted to go further, and say that the facts can be
best explained by the hypothesis of literary dependence of one document
on the other (so Lu. INS, 169 " E steht vollig in seinem [J's] Banne").
:
But the present writer is convinced from repeated examination, that

the diPFerences are not of a kind that can be accounted for in this way
(see Procksch, 305 f).
INTRODUCTION xlv
(pp. 418, 450) belong to an older stratum of tradition than the main
narrative ;and the same might be said of ch. 49 (p. 512), which may
very plausibly be regarded as a traditional poem of the school of J, and
'
'
the oldest extant specimen of its repertoire. —

With regard to E, the
proof of composite authorship lies chiefly in the Books of Exodus,
Numbers, and Joshua in Genesis, however, we have imperfectly as-
;
similated fragments of a more ancient tradition in 34 (? if E be a

component there), 35^'^ 48^^^ and perhaps some other passages. The —
important fact is that these passages exhibit all the literary peculiarities
of the main source to which they are assigned at least, no linguistic
;
differentice of any consequence have yet been discovered.* The problem

is to frame a theory which shall do justice at once to their material
incongruities and their literary homogeneity.
While the fact of collective authorship of some kind is
now generally recognised, there no agreement as to the

is
interpretation which best explains all the phenomena. Some

scholars are impressed (and the impression is certainly very
by the unity of conception and standpoint and
intelligible)
mode of treatment which characterise the two collections,

and maintain that (in the case of J especially) the stamp of
a powerful and original personality is too obvious to leave
much play for the activity of a *
school.' f It is very difficult
* The only exception would be Sievers* metrical analysis, which leads

to results far more complicated than can be justified by other indications
(see p. xxxif.).
+ See the lengthy excursus of Luther in INSy 107-170, where the
thesis is upheld that the Yahwist {i.e. Y) is not a stage in the natural
process of remodelling the tradition ; that he does not mean merely to

retail the old stories as he found them, but writes his book with the
conscious purpose of enforcing certain ideas and convictions which often
run contrary to the prevailing tendencies of his age (108). Lu. seems
to simplify the problem too much by excluding the primaeval tradition
from consideration (108), and ignoring the distribution of the Yahwistic
material over the various stages of the redaction (155). It makes a
considerable difference to the theory if (as seems to be the case) the
sections which Lu. assigns to J^ {e.g. chs. 34, 38, 19) really represent
older phases of tradition than the main document j for if they existed in
their Yahwistic colouring prior to the compilation of J', there must have
been a Yahwistic circle of some kind to preserve them and even if
;
they received their literary stamp at a later time, there must still have
been something of the nature of a school to impress the Yahwistic
character so strongly upon them. His conception of the Yahwist as an
Ephraimite, a detached and sympathetic adherent of the prophetic and
Rechabite movement of the 9th cent., an opponent of the cultus, and
an upholder of the nomadic ideal against the drift of the old tradition,
—
xlvi INTRODUCTION
to hold the balance even between the claims of unity and

complexity in the documents ; but the theory of single
authorship may easily be pressed too far. If we could get
through with only a J^ and J^, E^, E^ etc., i.e.^ with the
theory of one main document supplemented by a few later
additions, —
it would be absurd to speak of schools.' And '
even if the case were considerably more complicated, it

might still be possible to rest satisfied (as a majority of critics
do) with the idea of literary schools, manipulating written
documents under the influence of tendencies and principles
which had become traditional within special circles. Gu.
goes, however, much further with his conception of J and E
as first of all guilds of oral narrators, whose stories gradually
took written shape within their respective circles, and were
ultimately put together in the collections as we now have
them. The theory, while not necessarily excluding the
action of an outstanding personality in shaping either the
oral or the literary phase of the tradition, has the advantage
of suggesting a medium
in which the traditional material
might have assumed its specifically Yahwistic or Elohistic
form before being incorporated in the main document of the
school. It is at all events a satisfactory working hypothesis ;
and that is all that can be looked for in so obscure a region

of investigation. Whether it is altogether so artificial and
unnatural as Professor Orr would have us believe, the reader
must judge for himself.
seems to go far beyond the evidence adduced, and, indeed, to be hardly

reconcilable with the religfious tone and spirit of the narratives. To a —
similar effect writes Procksch, Sageiibuch, 284-308 ; although he does
justice to the composite structure of the document J, and describes it in
terms which throw a shade of uncertainty on the alleged unity of author-
ship. When we read of an " einheitlichen Grundstock, auf den wie in
einen Stamm Geschicten ganz anderer Herkunft gewissermassen auf-
gepropft sind, jetzt eng damit verwachsen durch die massgebenden
Ideen" (294 f.), we cannot help asking where these branches grew
before they were engrafted on their present stem. If we are right in
distinguishing a strand of narrative in which Yahwe was used from the
beginning, and another in which it was introduced in the time of Enosh,
it is not easy to account for their fusion on any theory which does not
allow a relative independence to the two conceptions.

INTRODUCTION xlvii
§ 9. Characteristics of J and E— their relation to Literary

Prophecy*
It is not the purpose of this section to give an exhaustive

characterisation of the literary or general features of the
two older documents of Genesis. If J and E are to be re-
garded as, in the main, recensions of a common body of oral
tradition, and if they are the work of schools rather than
of individuals, it is obvious that the search for characteristic
differences loses much of its interest and ; in point of fact
the attempt to delineate two well-defined literary types is
apt to be defeated by the widely contrasted features which
have to find a place in one and the same picture. Our object
here is simply to specify some outstanding differences which
justify the separation of sources, and which may assist us

later to determine the relative ages of the two documents.
J presents, on the whole, a more uniform literary texture

than E. It is generally allowed to contain the best examples
of pure narrative style in the OT ; and in Genesis it rarely,
if ever, falls below the highest But while E hardly
level.
attains the same perfection of form, there are whole passages,

especially in the more ample narratives, in which it is difficult
to assign to the one a superiority over the other. J excels
in picturesque 'objectivity' of description, — in the power to
paint a scene with few strokes, and in the delineation of life
and character: his dialogues, in particular, are inimitable

**for the delicacy and truthfulness with which character and
emotions find expression in them" (cf. Gn. 44^^^-).* E, on
the other hand, frequently strikes a deeper vein of subjective
feeling, especially of pathos ; as in the account of Isaac's
Hagar (21^^-), the dismay of
sacrifice (22), of the expulsion of
Isaac and the tears of Esau on the discovery of Jacob's fraud
(27^^-), Jacob's lifelong grief for Rachel (48^), or his tender-
ness towards Joseph's children (48^^).! But here again no
absolute distinction can be drawn in the history of Joseph,
;
e.g,^ the vein of pathos is perhaps more marked in J than
* Driver, LOT, p. 119. t Cf. Gunkel, p LXXVII.

xlvill INTRODUCTION
in E. Where parallels are sufficiently distinct to show a

tendency, it is found in several instances that J's objectivity
of treatment has succeeded in preserving the archaic spirit
of a leg-end which in E is transformed by the more refined
sentiment of a later age. The
best example is J's picture of
Hagar, the intractable, indomitable Bedawi woman (ch. i6),
as contrasted with E's modernised version of the incident
(21^^), with its affecting picture of the mother and child all
but perishing in the desert. So again, E (ch. 20) introduces
an extenuation of Abraham's falsehood about his wife which
is absent from the older narrative of J (i2^^*'^-).
It is not surprising, considering the immense variety of
material comprised in both documents, that the palpable

literary differences reduce themselves for the most part to a
preference for particular phrases and turns of expression in
the one recension or the other. The most important case is,
of course, the distinctive use (in the pre-Mosaic period) of

Yahwe in J and Elohim in E.* But round this are grouped
a number of smaller linguistic differences which, when they
occur in any degree of profusion in a consecutive passage,
enable us to assign it with confidence to one or other of the
sources.
The divine names. —While the possibility of error in the Massoretic

textual tradition is fully recognised, cases of inadvertence in the use of
* This, it is true, is more than a mere matter of phraseology ; in the
case of E, it is the application of a theory of religious development

which connected the revelation of the name Yahwe with the mission of
Moses (Ex. 3^^"^**). It is now generally held that the original E con-
tinued to use Elohim after the revelation to Moses, and that the
occurrences of Yahwê in the later history belong to secondary strata of
the document. On either view the choice of the general name of deity
is difficult to account for. Procksch regards it as due to the influence
of the great monotheistic movement headed by Elijah but that is not
;
probable. The inspiring motive of Elijah's crusade was precisely

jealousy for Yahwe, the national God of Israel. Gu., on the other hand,
thinks it arose from the fact that the legends were largely of Canaanite
and polytheistic origin and it is certainly the case that in the patriarchal
;
history E contains several strong traces of a polytheistic basis of the

narratives (28^*'"'- 32^- ^ 35^ etc.)- But that Elohim had a monotheistic
sense to the mind of the Elohistic writers is not to be doubted (against
Eerdmans).
;:
'
INTRODUCTION xl IX
ni.T and cnhn are Genesis singularly few. In E contexts, mn" occurs
in
2211- i4/);.r
its presence seems due to the intentional action
28-' 3i'*"> where
of a redactor. J has dm'?n (a) in 3^"^ 4^5 (a special case see pp. 2, 53) :
(b) where the contrast between the divine and the human is to be
emphasised, 322^ (c) in conversations with, or references to, heathen
;
4132b. 38 ^-^23. 29 ^^w there are also {d) some

(real or supposed), g^ 39^ .
doubtful examples which are very probably to be assigned to E,

2^5b. lOb. 11 ^2^. It is only in the last group (if even there), with
the possible addition (see p. 155) of 8^ that redactional alteration or
scribal error need be suspected.
For the inhahitants of Canaan^ J uses 'Jyjs, lo^^**- ^^ 12* (? R), 24^- "
50I1+ (îth 'ns, 13' (R?) 34^) E nDN, i5'« 48-2 + .* ;
For the m.me Jacob, J substitutes Israel after 35^" (exc. 46'^) E con- ;
sistently uses Jacob (exc. 46^ 488- "• 21 [50^^?]).

The following are selected lists of expressions (in Genesis) highly
characteristic of J and E respectively :
J : '3N and vnx db-i in genealogies the former, 4^- ^^ lo'*^ ii^^ 22^' : ;
the latter, 4^1 io26(cf. 22^1 25-^ 38^^^-)- — °'î?jOn connexion with a late-born
child), 2i2^-' 2488 373 4420.— |n N2iD, 68 i83' 19^9 3027 32« 338- 10. IB 34n 3^4
4725.29 2o4 + ,_m{3 (without 3), 2^ 19* 24^^'"^^ + .— V^' (in sexual sense),
^1. 17.25 ig5. 8
24I6 3826 (also in P).— n"?' ( =
beget'), 4^8 iqS- i3- is- 26 2223
*
253.— B'S 2423-42.49 28I6 394.5.8 422 434-7 44W. 20.26 4^6b+ (^2l E?). —
-DVSn, 223 i832 2934. 35 3020b ^^30^^
^ _ lers or sisters), ig^^- ^*- 3'- 38 2523

29264333 4814.—'' DB'^'xnpjV^ 128 134 2i33 2625 + nNnpV p^^ jga [-jî-] 2417
.—
2913 334._nn2B', 12^^ i6i- 5- e-s 2435 307- w. 12. 43 326. 23 33I. 2. 6 (20^4 30^8 R :
also common see on nox below. in fj'pB'n, 18^^ 1928 268 +

P) ; oyo with — . —
following gen., i84 24"- 43 432. n ^^^.—Particles nnya, 3I7 321 i2«- le i82« :
29. 31. 32
2i30 2624 274. 10. 19. 31 4634. —j^V'^, jgS j^S 33IO ^^26 ^ ^_.r^^2^^ 3!! 4I5
192' 38^+ (in E and P once each). — W, in J about 40 times, in E about 6

times (in Gen.).
E : HDN, 20^7 2iW- w- 3q3 3i3s+ (ggg
above). Vna and |ap (* elder
13 .^naa' —
and '
younger '), 4i5«-).— '?3^3, 45" 47I2 5021.—
29^«- ^8 42^3. i5. 20. 32. 34
(^f.
m3B'D, 29^^317- 41. —

A very characteristic idiom of E is the vocative (some-
times doubled: 22" 462, Ex. 34, [i Sa. 34 ffi] + ) with the answer ':3n
22^- 7- '1 27^^' '8 31I1 3713 462 + . —
E is further distinguished by a number of
rare or archaic words or phrases hjdn, 20^2 ^. Jqs. 720 nji, 48^^+ ; n3T, : ;
4211- w- 3i. 33. 84 . q^j^^

3o2«; ncn, 2114-16. i9^. nnts, 21^6+ p ('honest'),; ;
3i7- 41+ -,331

p, 2i23
.
(ef. Is. 14^2, Jb. i8^9 + ); ipv, 2294- ; hhs, 48'^; nns,
4o8ff. 4i8ff.+ . jnne, 405^- 41^^+ ; dujj, 4128; no'ts'p, 33'^+ Jos. 24^2 [Jb.
42^1]+ ; by a forms
partiality for rare infinitive (31-8 463 502° 48^^ + ), and
the occasional use of long forms of the nominal sufF. (2i29 [316] 4121 4236),
The and theolog-ical conceptions of the two

relig-Ious
documents are main identical, though a certain dilFer-

in the
ence of standpoint appears in one or two features. Both
* The cross (-t-) means that the usage is continued in the other books
of the Hex.
d
1 INTRODUCTION
evince towards the popular cultus an attitude of friendly

toleration, with a disposition to ignore its cruder aspects ;
and this tendency is carried somewhat further in J than in E.

Thus, while neither countenances the Asherah, or sacred
pole, E alludes, without offence, to the Mazzebah, or sacred
pillar (28^^- 22 31^^- ^^^- 35^^) whereas J nowhere allows to the
;
mazzebah a legitimate function in the worship of Yahwe.

A very singular circumstance is that while both frequently
record the erection of altars by the patriarchs, they are
remarkably reticent as to the actual offering of sacrifice E :
refers to it only twice {22. 46^), and J never at all in the

patriarchal history (ct. 4.^^- 8^^^-). It is difficult to imagine
that the omission is other than accidental : the idea that it
indicates an indifference (Gu.), or a conscious opposition

(Lu.), to the cultus, can hardly be entertained for after all ;
the altar had no use or significance except as a means of

sacrifice. —The most striking diversity appears in the repre-
sentation of the Deity, and especially of the manner of His
revelation to men. The antique form of the theophany, in
which Yahwe (or the Angel of Yahwe) appears visibly in
human form, and in broad daylight, is peculiar to J (chs.
16. 18. 19), and corresponds to the highly anthropomorphic
language which is observed in other parts of the document

(chs. 2. 3. 7. 8. 1 1^- ^). E, on the contrary, records no daylight
theophanies, but prefers the least sensible forms of revelation,
28io«-
—the dream or night-vision (15I 20-^- « 21^2 [cf. i*] 22iff-
îii. 24 462), 5«-

or the voice of the angel from heaven (21^^).
In this respect E undoubtedly represents a more advanced
stage of theological reflexion than J. —The national feeling
in both sources buoyant and hopeful
is the scheue : *
heidnische Stimmung,' the sombre and melancholy view of

life which marks the primaeval history of J disappears abso-
lutely when the history of the immediate ancestors of Israel

is reached. The strongly pessimistic strain which some
* We do not include the dreams of the Joseph-stories, which seem to
stand on a somewhat different footing (p. 345). Nocturnal revelations

occur, however, in J (26^^ 28^^), but whether in the oldest parts of the
document is not quite certain.
:
INTRODUCTION H
writers note as characteristic of E finds no expression what

ever in Genesis ; and so far as it exists at all (Jos. 24), it
belongs to secondary strata of the document, with which we

are not here concerned.
Here we touch on a question of great importance, and
one fortunately capable of being brought to a definite issue
viz., the relation of J and E to the literary prophecy of the
8th and following centuries. It is usual to speak of the

combined JE as the Prophetical narrative of the Pent., in
distinction from P, the Priestly narrative and in so far as;
the name is employed (as, e.g.^ by Dri. LOT^, 117) to

emphasise that contrast, it is sufficiently appropriate. As
used, however, by many writers, it carries the implication
—
that the documents or that one to which the epithet is
—
applied show unmistakable traces of the influence of the
later prophets from Amos downwards. That view seems to
us entirely erroneous. It is undoubtedly the case that both
J and E are pervaded by ideas and convictions which they

share in common with the writing prophets such as, the :
monotheistic conception of God, the ethical view of His

providential government, and perhaps a conscious opposition
to certain emblems of popular cultus (asheras, mazzebas,
teraphim, etc.). But that these and similar principles were
first enunciated by the prophets of the 8th cent., we have no
reason to suppose. Nor does the fact that Abraham, as a

man of God, is called Nabi' (20^, cf. Dt. 34^^) necessarily
imply that the figure of an Amos or an Isaiah was before
the mind of the writers. We must bear in mind that the
9th century witnessed a powerful prophetic movement which,
commencing in N extended into Judah and that any
Israel, ;
prophetic influences discoverable in Genesis are as likely to

have come from the impulse of that movement as from the
later development which is so much better known to us.
But in truth it is questionable if any prophetic impulse at all,
other than those inherent in the religion from its foundation
by Moses, is necessary to account for the religious tone of
the narratives of Genesis. The decisive fact is that the
really distinctive ideas of written prophecy find no echo in
Hi INTRODUCTION
those parts of J and E with which we have to do. These

are: the presentiment of the impending- overthrow of the
Israelitish nationality, together with the perception of its
moral necessity, the polemic against foreign deities, the

denunciation of prevalent oppression and social wrong, and
the absolute repudiation of cultus as a means of recovering
Yahwe's favour. Not only are these conceptions absent
from our documents, but it is difficult to conceive that they
should have been in the air in the age when the documents
were composed. For, though it is true that very different
religious ideas may exist side by side in the same community,
it scarcely credible that J and E could have maintained
is
their confident hope for the future of the nation intact

against the tremendous arraignment of prophecy. This
consideration gains in force from the fact that the secondary
strata of E, and the redactional additions to JE, which do
come within the sweep of the later prophetic movement,
clearly show that the circles from which these writings
emanated were sensitively responsive to the sterner message
of the prophets.
§ ID. Date and place of origin —Redaction ofJE.

On the relative age of J and E, there exists at present
no consensus of critical opinion. Down to the appearance
of Wellhausen's Geschichte Israels in 1878, scholars were
practically unanimous in assigning the priority to E.*
Since then, the opposite view has been strongly maintained
by the leading exponents of the Grafian theory,! although
a number of critics still adhere to the older position. J The
reason for this divergence of opinion lies not in the paucity
of points of comparison, but partly in the subjective nature
of the evidence, and partly in the fact that such indications
as exist point in opposite directions.
To take a few examples from Genesis Ch. :
16^"^'*
(J) produces an
impression of greater antiquity than the parallel 21^"^* (E) J's explana-
;
* Hupf. Schr. No. Reuss, al.
t We. Kuen. Sta, Meyer ; so Luther, Procksch, al.
X Dl. Kittel, Konig-, Wi. al.

INTRODUCTION Hii
tion of the name Issachar, with its story of the love-apples (30^*'^^), is
more primitive than that of E (30''') ; J (30-**"'*^) attributes the increase
of Jacob's flocks to his own cunning-, whereas E (3i"''''^) attributes it to
the divine blessing. On the other hand, E's recension of the Bethel-
theophany (28^^^- ^^^•) is obviously more antique than J's ('^-le^ a.nd in .
the Joseph narratives the leadership of Reuben (E) an element of

is
the orig"inaI tradition which J has altered in favour of Judah. A

peculiarly instructive case is i2'°''"' (J) 20 (E) 26'^*'^- (J), where it seems
|| ||
to us (though Kuenen and others take a different view) that Gunkel is

clearly right in holding that J has preserved both the oldest and the
youngest form of the legend, and that E represents an intermediate
stage.
This result is not surprising when we understand that

J and E are not individual writers, but guilds or schools,
whose literary activity may have extended over several
generations, and who drew on a store of unwritten tradition
which had been in process of codification for generations
before that. This consideration forbids us also to argue too
confidently from observed differences of theological stand-
point between the two documents.It is beyond doubt that
E, with its comparative freedom from anthropomorphisms

and sensible theophanies, with its more spiritual conception
of revelation, and its greater sensitiveness to ethical
blemishes on the character of the patriarchs (p. xlviii),
occupies, on the whole, a higher level of reflexion than J ;
but we cannot tell how far such differences are due to the
general social milieu in which the writers lived, and how far
to esoteric tendencies of the circles to which they belonged.
All that can safely be affirmed is that, while E has occa-
sionally preserved the more ancient form of the tradition,
there is a strong presumption that J as a whole is the earlier
document.
In attempting to determine the absolute dates of J and
E, we have a fixed point of departure in the fact that both
are earlier than the age of written prophecy (p. li f.) in other ;
words, 750 B.C. is the terminus ad que-m for the composition

of either. If it be the case that 37^ in E presupposes the
monarchy of the house of Joseph, the terminus a quo for that
document would be the disruption of the kingdom, c. 930
(cf. Dt. 33^) and indeed no one proposes to fix it higher.
;
J f
llV INTRODUCTION
Between these limits, there is little to guide us to a more

precise determination. General considerations, such as the
tone of political feeling, the advanced conception of God,
and traces of the influence of gth-century prophecy, seem
and in particular
to us to point to the later part of the period,
to the brilliant reign of Jeroboam ii. (785-745), as the most
likely time of composition.* In J there is no unequivocal
allusion to the divided kingdom and nothing absolutely
;
prevents us from putting its date as early as the reign of

Solomon. The sense of national solidarity and of confidence
in Israel's destiny is even more marked than In E and It ;
has been questioned, not without reason, whether such

feelings could have animated the breast of a Judaean in the
dark days that followed the dissolution of Solomon's empire.
That argument is not greatly to be trusted although the :
loss of the northern provinces was keenly Judah

felt in
(Is. 7^^), yet the writings of Isaiah show was
that there
plenty of flamboyant patriotism there in the 8th cent., and
we cannot tell how far in the intervening period religious
Idealism was able to overcome the depression natural to a
feeble and dependent state, and keep alive the sense of unity
and the hope of reunion with the larger Israel of the north.
In any case, it is improbable that J and E are separated by
an interval of two centuries ; if E belongs to the first half
of the 8th cent., J will hardly be earlier than the 9th.
Specific historical allusions which have been thoug-ht to indicate a

more definite date for J (or E) prove on examination to be unreliable,
jf
<jj44ff. ^^g23ff.
contained references to the wars between Israel and Aram
under Omri and his successors, it would be necessary to bring- the date
of both documents down to that time ; but Gunkel has shown that inter-
pretation to be improbable. — 27'*'"' presupposes the revolt of Edom from
Judah (c. 840) but that prosaic half-verse is probably an addition to

;
the poetic passagê in which it occurs, and therefore gfoes to show that
the blessing- itself is earlier, instead of later, than the middle of the
9th cent. — The curse on Canaan (g-^^-) does not necessarily assume
the definite subjugation of the Canaanites by Israel and if it did, would
;
* So Procksch (i78ff.), who points out a number of indications that
appear to converge on that period of history. We. Kue. Sta. Ho.

agree Reuss. Di. Ki. place it in the 9th cent.
;
t Procksch, 286 ft'. + So We. Kue. Sta. Kit. Gu. al.

INTRODUCTION Iv
only prove a date not earlier than Solomon, —

Other arguments, such
as the omission of Asshur and the inclusion of Kelah and Nineveh in
the list of Assyrian cities in lo^' etc., are still less conclusive.
While it is thus impossible to assign a definite date to

J and E, there are fairly solid grounds for the now generally
accepted view that the former is of Judaean and the latter of
Ephraimite origin. Only, it must be premised that the body
of patriarchal tradition which lies behind both documents
is native to northern, or rather central, Israel, and must
have taken shape there. "'^

The
favourite wife of Jacob is
not Leah but Rachel, mother of Joseph (Ephraim-
the
Manasseh) and Benjamin; and Joseph himself is the
brightest figure in all the patriarchal gallery. The sacred
places common to both recensions — Shechem, Bethel,
Mahanaim, Peniel, Beersheba — are, except the last, all in
Israelite territory; and Beersheba, though belonging geo-
graphically to Judah, was for some unknown reason a
favourite resort of pilgrims from the northern kingdom
(Am. 5^ 8^*, I Ki. 19^). — It is when we look at the diver-
gence between the two sources that the evidence of the
Ephraimite origin of E and the Judaean of J becomes con-
sistent and clear. Whereas E never evinces the slightest
interest in any sanctuary except those mentioned above, J
makes Hebron the scene of his most remarkable theophany,
and thus indelibly associates its sanctity with the name of
Abraham. It is true that he also ascribes to Abraham the
founding of the northern sanctuaries, Shechem and Bethel
(i2^'^); but we can hardly fail to detect something per-
functory in his description, as compared with E's impressive
narrative of Jacob's dream at Bethel (28^^''^^- i7-22j^ qj. j^jg
own twofold account of the founding of Beersheba (chs. 21.
26). It is E alone who records the place of Rachel's grave
(35^^), of those of Rebekah's nurse Deborah (^), of Joseph
(Jos. 24^2)^ and Joshua (^^), — all in the northern territory.
The sections peculiar to J (p. xliii) are nearly all of local
* We. Prol.^ 317. It is the neglect of this fact that has mainly led
to the belief that J, like E, is of Ephraimite origin (Kue. Reuss, Schr.
Fripp, Luther, al.).
Ivi INTRODUCTION
Judasan interest: in i8 the scene is Hebron; 19^-^8 jg a

legend of the Dead Sea basin ;
igSOff- deals with the origin
of the neighbouring peoples of Moab and Ammon 38 is ;
based on the internal tribal history of Judah (and is not, as

has been supposed, charged with animosity towards that
tribe : see p. 455). Finally, while Joseph's place of honour
was too firmly established to be challenged, it is J who, in
defiance of the older tradition, transfers the birthright and
the hegemony from Reuben to Judah (49^^- 35^^*", the Joseph
narratives). — These indications make it at least relatively
probable that in J we have a Judaean recension of the patri-
archal tradition, while E took its shape in the northern
kingdom.
The composite work JE is the result of a redactional
operation, which was completed before the other components
(D and P) were incorporated in the Pent.* The redactors
(R-^^) have done their work (in Genesis) with consummate skill
and and have produced a consecutive narrative whose

care,
strands often difficult to unravel.
it is They have left traces
of their hand in a few harmonising touches, designed to
remove a discrepancy between J and E (i6^^-282ib- 3 1 49ff. (>'»"•)
39I 41^^^ 46^ 50^^^-): some of these, however, may be later
glosses. Of greater interest are a number of short addi-
tions, of similar import and complexion but occurring both
in J and E, which may, not with certainty but with great
probability, be assigned to these editors (i3^*~^^ i8^^~^^ 22^^"^^
263b-5 28I* 32^^-1^ 46^^'^) : to this redaction we are disposed
also to attribute a thorough revision of ch. 15. In these

passages we seem to detect a note of tremulous anxiety
regarding the national future of Israel and its tenure of the
land of Canaan, which is at variance with the optimistic
outlook of the original sources, and suggests that the writers
are living under the shadow of impending exile. A slight
trace of Deuteronomic phraseology in 18^'^^- and 26^^*^- con-
firms the impression that the redaction took place at some
time between the publication of Deuteronomy and the Exile.
* So No. We. and most ; against Hupf. Di. al.

INTRODUCTION Ivii
§ 1 1. The Priestly Code and the Final Redaction,
It is fortunately not necessary to discuss in this place

all the intricate questions connected with the history and
structure of the Priests' Code. The Code as a whole is,
even more obviously than J or E, the production of a school,

— in this case a school of juristic writers, whose main task
was to systematise the mass of ritual regulations which had
accumulated in the hands of the Jerusalem priesthood, and
to develop a theory of religion which grew out of them.
Evidence of stratification appears chiefly in the legislative
portions of the middle Pent., where several minor codes
are amalgamated, and overlaid with considerable accretions
of later material. Here, however, we have to do only with
the great historical work which forms at once the kernel of
the Code and the framework of the Pent., the document
distinguished by We.
{Quatuor foedemm liber)^ by
as Q
Kue. as P^, by others as P^."*" Although this groundwork
shows traces of compilation from pre-existing material (see
pp. 8, 35, 40, 130, 169, 428 f., etc.), it nevertheless bears the
impress of a single mind, and must be treated as a unity.
No critical operation is easier or more certain than the separation

of this work, down even from the context in
to very small fragments,
which embedded. When this is done, and the fragments pieced
it is
tog-ether, we have before us, almost in its orig-inal integrity, an inde-

pendent document, which is a source^ as well as the framework, ,of
Genesis. We have seen (p. xli) that the opposite opinion is maintained
by Klostermann and Orr, who hold that P is merely a supplementing
redactor of, or collaborator
*
with, JE. But two facts combine to
'
render this hypothesis absolutely untenable, (i) The fragments form

a consecutive history, in which the lacunce are very few and unim-
portant, and those which occur are easily explicable as the result of
the redactional process. The precise state of the case is as follows :
In the primaeval history no hiatus whatever can be detected. Dr.

Orr's assertion {POT, 348 f.) that P's account of the Flood must have
contained the episodes of the birds and the sacrifice, because both are
in the Babylonian version, will be worth considering when he has made
it probable either that P had ever read the Babylonian story, or that,
if he had, he would have wished to reproduce it intact. As matter of
* Kue.'s P^ is the so-called Law of Holiness (P'^), which is older

than the date usually assigned to P*^.
— —
Iviii INTRODUCTION
fact, neitherIs in the least degree probable and, as we shall see
;
presently, Noah's sacrifice is an incident which P would certainly

—
have suppressed if he had known of it. In the history of Abraham
there is again no reason to suspect any omission. Here is a literal
translation of the disjecta me^nhra of P's epitome of the biography of
Abraham, with no connexions supplied, and only one verse transposed
(19-^): 12""^ "Now Abram was 75 years old when he went out from
Harran. ^ And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son,
and all their possessions which they had acquired, and all the souls whom
they had procured and they went out to go to the land of Canaan,
;
and they came to the land of Canaan. 13^ And the land could not bear
them so that they might dwell together, for their possessions were
great, and they were not able to dwell together. ^^^ So they separated
from one another ^^"^ Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot
:
dwelt in the Oval.

cities of the 19-^ And when God destroyed the
cities of theOval, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot away from
the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot
dwelt. — 16^ Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. ^ So
Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, after Abram
had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram
her husband for a wife to him. ^* And Hagar bore to Abram a son, and
Abram called the name of his son whom Hagar bore to him Ishmael.
^^ And Abram was 86 years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.
— 17^ And when Abram was 99 years old, Yahwe appeared to Abram,
and said to him," etc. Here follows the account of the covenant with
Abraham, the change of his name and that of Sarai, the institution of
circumcision, and the announcement of the birth of Isaac to Sarah
(ch. 17). —The narrative is resumed in 21^*^ "And FÂ?^^ did to Sarah
as he had spoken, ^^ at the appointed time which God had mentioned.
^ And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom
Sarah bore to him, Isaac. ^ And Abraham circumcised Isaac his son
when he was 8 days old, as God had commanded him. ^ And
Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac his son was born to him.
23^ And the life of Sarah was 127 years ; ^ and Sarah died in Kiryath
Arba, that is Hebron, in the land of Canaan." This introduces the
story of the purchase of Machpelah as a burying-place (ch. 23), and
this brings us to 2^ ** And these are the days of the years of the life
of Abraham which he lived: 175 years; ^ and he expired. And
Abraham died in a good old age, an old man and full [of years], and
was gathered to his father's kin. ^ And his sons Isaac and Ishmael
buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the fiel^ of Ephron the son of
Zohar, the Hittite, which is opposite Mamre ^^ the field which Abraham
:
bought from the sons of Heth there was Abraham buried, and Sarah
:
his wife. —^^ And after the death of Abraham, God blessed Isaac his
son." The reader can judge for himself whether a narrative so con-
tinuous as this, every isolated sentence of which has been detached
from its context by unmistakable criteria of the style of P, is likely to
have been produced by the casual additions of a mere supplementer of
an older work. And if he objects to the transposition of 19-^, let him
INTRODUCTION Hx
note at the same time how
utterly meaningless in its present position
that verse considered as a supplement to ig^'^^.
is, —
In the sections on
Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, there are undoubtedly omissions which we
can only supply from JE and if we were to judge from these parts
;
alone, the supplementary theory would be more plausible than it is.

We miss, e.g., accounts of the birth of Jacob and Esau, of Jacob's
arrival in Paddan Aram, Leah and Rachel, of the
of his marriage to
birth of Joseph, of his slavery and elevation in Egypt, his reconciliation
with his brethren, and perhaps some other particulars. Even here,
however, the theory is absolutely negatived by the contradictions to
JE which will be specified immediately. Dr. Orr's argument on this
point {POT, 343 ff.) really assumes that the account of JE is the only
way in which the gaps of P could be filled up but the examination of
;
the story of Abraham has shown that that is not the case. The facts are
fully explained by the supposition that a short epitome of the history,
similar to that of the history of Abraham, has been abridged in the
redaction, by the excision of a very few sentences, in favour of the
—
fuUer narrative of JE. (2) The second fact which makes Dr. Orr's
hypothesis untenable is this, that in almost every instance where P
expands into circumstantial narration it gives a representation of the
events which is distinctly at variance with the older documents. The
difference between P's cosmogony and J's account of the Creation is
such that it is ludicrous to speak of the one as a supplement or a
* framework to the other and the two Flood stories are hardly less
' ;
irreconcilable (see p. 148). In the life of Abraham, we have two

parallel accounts of the covenant with Abraham in ch. 15 (JE) and 17
(P) and it is evident that the one supersedes and excludes the other.
;
Again, P's reason for Jacob's journey to Mesopotamia (281-^) is quite in-
consistent with that given by JE in ch. 27 (p. 374 f.) and his conception
;
of Isaac's blessing as a transmission of the blessing originally bestowed

on Abraham (28'*) is far removed from the idea which forms the motive
of ch. 27. In JE, Esau takes up his abode in Seir before Jacob's return
from Mesopotamia (32^) in P he does not leave Canaan till after the
;
burial of Isaac (35^). P's account of the enmity between Joseph and
his brethren is unfortunately truncated, but enough is preserved to
show that it differed essentially from that of JE (see p. 444). It is
difficult to make out where Jacob was buried according to
J and E, but
it certainly was not at Machpelah, as in P (see p. 538 f.). And so on.
Everywhere we see a tendency in P to suppress or minimise discords
in thepatriarchal households. It is inconceivable that a supplementer
should thus contradict his original at every turn, and at the same time
leave it to tell its own story. When we find that the passages of an
opposite tenor to JE form parts of a practically complete narrative, we
cannot avoid the conclusion that P^ is an independent document, which
has been preserved almost entire in our present Book of Genesis. The
question then arises whether these discrepancies spring from a divergent
tradition followed by F^ or from a deliberate re-writing of the history
as told by JE, under the influence of certain theological ideals and
principles, which we now proceed to consider.
Ix INTRODUCTION
The central theme and objective of P^ is the institution

of the Israelitish theocracy, whose symbol is the Tabernacle,
erected, by Moses at Mount
after its heavenly antitype,
Sinai. For whole previous history of man-
this event the
kind is a preparation. The Mosaic dispensation is the last
of four world-ages from the Creation to the Flood, from
:
Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, and from

Moses onwards. Each period is inaugurated by a divine
revelation, and the last two by the disclosure of a new name
of God El Shaddai to Abraham (17^), and Yahwe to Moses
:
(Ex. Each period, also, is marked by the institution

6^).
of some permanent element of the theocratic constitution,

the Levitical system being conceived as a pyramid rising in
four stages : the Sabbath (2^^-) ;
permission of the slaughter
of animals, coupled with a restriction on the use of the
blood (9^^-); circumcision (17) ; and, lastly, the fully developed
Mosaic ritual. Not till the last stage is reached is sacrificial
worship of the Deity authorised. Accordingly neither altars
nor sacrifices are ever mentioned in the pre-Mosaic history ;
and even the distinction between clean and unclean animals

is supposed to be unknown at the time of the Flood. It is
particularly noteworthy that the profane, as distinct from

the sacrificial, slaughter of animals, which even the
Deuteronomic law treats as an innovation, is here carried
back to the covenant with Noah.
Beneath this imposing historical scheme, with its ruling
idea of a progressive unfolding of God's will to men, we
discover a theory of religion which, more than anything else,
expresses the spirit of the Priestly school to which the author
of P^ belonged. The exclusive emphasis on the formal or
institutional 2iSêct of religion, which is the natural proclivity
of a sacerdotal caste, appears in P^ in a very pronounced
fashion. Religion is resolved into a series of positive enact-
ments on the part of God, and observance of these on the
part of man. The old cult-legends (p. xiif.), which traced
the origin of existing ritual usages to historic incidents in the
lives of the fathers, are swept away and every practice to
;
which a religious value is attached is referred to a direct

INTRODUCTION Ixi
command of God. In the deeper problems of religion, on

the other hand, such as the origin of evil, the writer evinces
no interest and of personal piety the disposition of the
; —
—
heart towards God his narrative hardly furnishes an
illustration. In both respects he represents a theology at
once more abstract and shallower than that of J or E,
whose more imaginative treatment of religious questions
shows a true apprehension of the deeper aspects of the
spiritual life (chs. 3. 6^ 8^1 iS^^^- 45^ etc.), and succeeds in
depicting the personal religion of the patriarchs as a genuine
experience of inward fellowship with God (cf. 22. 2^.^^^- 32^^-
48^^*- etc.). It would be unfair to charge the author of P*^
with indifference to the need for vital godliness, for he lacks

the power of delineating character and emotion in any
relation of life ; but his defects are none the less character-
istic of the type of mind that produced the colourless digest
of history, which suffices to set forth the dominant ideas of
the Priestly theology.
Another characteristic distinction between JE and P is
seen in the enhanced transcendentalism of the latter's con-

ception of Deity. Anthropomorphic, and still more anthro-
popathic, expressions are studiously avoided (an exception
is Gn. 2^^". cf. Ex. 31^^^); revelation takes the form of
simple speech ; and visions are never alluded
angels, dreams,
to. Theophanies are mentioned, but not described God is ;
said to appear to men, and to go up from them (Gn.

'
'
*
'
1^1. 22f. ^-9. 13 ^^gs^ Ex. 6^), but the manner of His appearance
is nowhere indicated save in the supreme manifestation at
Sinai (Ex. 20^^- 3429b ^QZî.y it is true that a similar incon-
creteness often characterises the theophanies of J and E,

and the later strata of these documents exhibit a decided
approximation to the abstract conceptions of P. But a
comparison of the parallels ch. 17 with 15, or 35^^- with
28^^-, makes
it clear that P's departure from the older tradi-
from a deliberate intention to exclude sensuous

tion springs
imagery from the representation of Godhead.
It remains to consider, in the light of these facts, P's attitude to the
traditional history of the patriarchs. In the first place, it is clear that
Ixii INTRODUCTION
he accepts the main outline of the history as fixed in tradition. But

whether he knew that tradition from other sources than J and E, is a
question not so easily answered. For the primitive period, direct
dependence on J is improbable, because of the marked diversity in the
accounts of the Creation and the Flood here P seems to have followed
:
a tradition closely akin to, but not identical with, that of J. In the
history of the patriarchs there seems no reason to suppose that he had
any other authorities than J and E. The general course of events is
the same, and differences of detail are all explicable from the known
tendencies of the Code. But the important facts are that nearly the
whole of the history, both primitive and patriarchal, is reduced to a
meagre summary, with little save a chronological significance, and that
the points where the narrative becomes diffuse and circumstantial are
(with one exception) precisely those which introduce a new religious
dispensation viz. the Creation, the Flood, the Abrahamic covenant,
:
and the Exodus. The single exception is the purchase of Machpelah

(ch. 23),an event which doubtless owes its prominence to its connexion
with the promise of the land to Abraham and his seed. For the rest,
a certain emphasis naturally lies on outstanding events, Uke the origin
of the Israel {2^^-), or the settlement of Jacob's family in Egypt
name
(47^'^^) and the author lingers with interest on the transmission of the
;
patriarchal blessing and promise from Isaac to Jacob (28^- 35^^), and from
Jacob to his sons (48^^). But these are practically all the incidents to
which V^ attaches any sort of significance of their own and even these
;
derive much of their importance from their relation to the chronological

scheme into which they are fitted.— Hence to say that P's epitome would
be unintelligible apart from JE, is to confuse his point of view with
' '
our own. It is perfectly true that from P alone we should know very
little of the characters of the patriarchs, of the motives which governed
their actions, or of the connexion between one event and another. But
these are matters which P had no interest in making intelligible.' He
'
is concerned solely with events, not with causes or motives. The indi-
vidual is sufficiently described when we are told whose son he was, how
long he lived, what children he begot, and such like. He is but a link
in the generations that fill up the history and even where he is the
;
recipient of a divine revelation, his selection for that privilege depends

on his place in the divine scheme of chronology, rather than on any
personal endowment or providential training.
The style of P^ can be characterised without the reserves

and qualificationswhich were necessary in speaking of the
difference between J and E (p. xlviif.); there is no better
illustration of the dictum le style c'est Vhomme than in this
remarkable document. Speaking broadly, the style reflects
the qualities of the legal mind, in its stereotyped termin-
ology, its aim at precise and exhaustive statement, its
monotonous repetitions, and its general determination to
—
INTRODUCTION 1 Xlll
leave no loophole for misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

The jurist's love of order and method appears in a great
facility in the construction of schemes and schedules
genealogical tables, systematic enumerations, etc. —as well
as in the carefully planned disposition of the narrative as a
whole. It is necessary to read the whole work consecutively
in order to realise the full effect of the laboured diffuseness,
the dry lucidity and prosaic monotony of this characteristic
product of the Priestly school of writers. On the other
hand, the style is markedly deficient in the higher elements
of literature. Though capable at times of rising to an
impressive dignity (as in Gn. it is apt to de- i. 47'^"^^),
generate into a tedious and meaningless iteration of set

phrases and rigid formulae (see Nu. 7). The power of
picturesque description, or dramatic delineation of life and
character, is absent : the writer's imagination is of the
mechanical type, which cannot realise an object without the
help of exact quantitative specification or measurement.
Even in ch. 23, which is perhaps the most lifelike narrative
in the Code, the characteristic formalism asserts itself in the
measured periodic movement of the action, and the recurrent
use of standing expressions from the opening to the close.
That such a style might become the property of a school we
see from the case of Ezekiel, whose writings show strong
affinities with P but of all the Priestly documents, P^ is the
;
one in which the literary bent of the school is best ex-

emplified, and (it may be added) is seen to most advantage.
The following selection (from Driver, Z6>7*, 131 ff.) of distinctive

expressions of P, occurring in Genesis, will give a sufficient idea of the
stylistic peculiarity of the book, and also of its linguistic affinities with
the later literature, but especially with the Book of Ezekiel.
D'n^N as the name of God, uniformly in Gen., except 17^ 21^''. pD, —
•kind': I'l. 12. 21. 24.25 520 î4 (l^. ii, Dt. 14; only again Ezk. 4f%—
XlVi * to swarm i^"- 21 721 8^7 9? + * (outside of P only Ps. los^", Ezk. 478).
' :
As on p. xlix, the cross ( + ) indicates that further examples are

*
found in the rest of the Pent. It should be expressly said, however, that
the + frequently covers a considerable number of cases and that a ;
selection of phrases, such as is here given, does not fully represent the
strength of the linguistic argument, as set forth in the more exhaustive
lists of Dri. (/.c.) or the Oxf, Hex. (vol. i. pp. 208-221).
— :
Ixiv INTRODUCTION
— pf, * swarming- things ' : i^ y^^+ (only
Dt. 14*'). nam ms; in P and —
i22. 28 817 gi.7 1720 283 3^11 ^^27 clscwhere only Jer. 3"
^8^ (Ex. i', Lv. 20> J
[inverted], 23^ Ezk. 36^^). n^Dx*? —

i^^-so g^^ 9^+ (elsewhere only in
:
Ezk. (10 times), and (as inf.) Jer. 12^). nnîn lo^^ 25^^+ (elsewhere — :
I Ch. 5' 72-4.9 828 98.^4 2631). The phrase nnîn r:hn{^] occurs in P 10
times in Gen. (see p. xxxiv), and in Nu. 3^ elsewhere only Ru. 4^^^ , q^^ i29_ ;
— yu 6^7 fi 258. 17 3^29 4^33+ (elsewhere poetical Zee. 138, Ps. 88'^ 10^29^
: :
—
La. i^^ and 8 times in Jb.). ?i?];, tjjjin, etc. (appended to enumerations)
618 y7. 13 816. 18 ^8 284 466- ^ + .— D3nnN, etc. (after seed g^ if- »• »• lo- is 351a
'
') :
48^ + .— nm Dvn Dsy: y^s 1^23.26^. only jn p and Ezk. 2^ 24^40^ (Jos. lo^"
—
redactional).— D.T omnstj'D'?: 8^^ lo^- 2«- 3i 36'*o + (very often in P elsewhere :
only Nu. ii^'* [JE], i Sa. loî, 1 Ch. 5^ 6^^- "8). —oîy nnn 9I6 177.13. :9^^ :
only in P.— nxa iNDa 172.6.29^ g^. i' elsewhere only Ezk. 9^ i6i^
: ;
—
jyi^n :
1
1 2= 13^ 3 18 36'^ 46^+ elsewhere Gn. 1411- 12. is. 21 jî* ^^d 15 times
;
.
in Ch. Ezr. Dn. t^3T —

12^ 31^8 36^ 46^ +
: t5'3j(= 'person') . —
12^ 36^ 46^^ :
18. 22. 25. 26. 27+ <<

much morc frequent in P than elsewhere." DD' onm^
.
— :
iy7.9.i2+ 36 times (only in P).— onuD 178 28" 36^ 37' 47^+ Ex. 6^
: else- ;
where Ezk. 2o38, Ps. 55i« 11954, Jb. i8i« + .— ^)^^<: 178 23^- ^-^^ 36"^ 47I1
48" 493^ 50" + Often in Ezk. (44^8 455- 6. 7. 8 ^^le. is 4820. 21. 22) elsewhere
. .
Ps. 28, I Ch. 728 92[= Neh. ii^], 2 Ch. iii4 3ii + ._n3pD 7 12. 13.23.27 23I8
1 + :
(confined to P except Jer. 32ii-i2- 1^. i6)__Q^Dy (= 'father's kin'): 17I*

258.173^294^33+ (also Ezk. 18I8; elsewhere Ju. 5!^?, Ho. io^* + ).—2&m\:
23*+ 10 times (also i Ki. 17I?, i Ch. 291^, Ps. 39i3)._.pjp 31I8 [3423] 356 + ;
(outside of P, only Ezk. 3812^- Pr. 4', Ps. 1042* 10521).

;
In the choice of synonymous expressions, P exhibits an exclusive

preference for '^^'h^n in the sense of beget over i*?' (in the genealogies
'
'
of J), and for the form ':n of the ist pers. pron. ('33N only in Gn. 23^).
Geographical designations peculiar to P^ are Kiryath- Arhd (for :
Hebron) 2323527+; Machpelah, 239- 17- is 25^ 4930 5©!^+ Paddan-Aram, ;
2520 282- 31I8 33I8 3^9. 26 4615 +

5. 6. 7 ._To
be added jyjD px, i iî thesc may
12^ 1312 16^ 178 232' 19 31I8 33I835637I +
the expression is found in JE ;
only in the Joseph-section (chs. 42, 44, 45, 47). Ps has jyjD without pK
only in jyjD m32 (281 362).
In view of all these and similar peculiarities (for the list is by no
means exhaustive), the attempt to obliterate the linguistic and stylistic
distinction between P and JE (Eerdmans) is surely a retrograde step in
criticism.
The date of the composition of P^ lies between the

promulgation of the Deuteronomic law (621 B.C.), and the
post-Exilic reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah (444).
It is later than Deut., because it assumes without question
the centralisation of worship at one sanctuary, which in
Dt. is only held up as an ideal to be realised by a radical

reform of established usage. A nearer determination of
date depends on questions of the internal analysis of P
which are too complex to be entered on here. That the
INTRODUCTION IxV
Code as a whole Is later than Ezekiel is proved by the fact

that the division between priests and Levites, which is
unknown to the writer of Deut., and of which we find the
origin and justification in Ezk. 44^~^^ is presupposed as
already established (Nu. 3. 4. 8, etc.). It is possible, how-
ever, that that distinction belongsto a stratum of the

legislation not included in P^ which case P^ might very
; in
well be earlier than Ezk., or even than the Exile. The
question does not greatly concern us here. For the under-
standing of Genesis, it is enough to know that P^, both in
its theological conceptions and its attitude towards the
national tradition, represents a phase of thought much later
than J and E.
The view that Ps

was written before the Exile (in the end of the
7th cent.) advocated by Procksch (I.e. 319 ff.), who reduces this
is
part of P to narrower limits than most critics have done. He regards

it as an essentially historical work, of considerable literary merit, em-
bracing- hardly any direct legislation except perhaps the Law of Holiness
(P^), and recognising the priestly status of the entire tribe of Levi, just
as in Dt. (Nu. 17I6-24 and P^ in its original form). If that fact could be
established, it would go far to show that the document is older than
Ezk. It is admitted both by Kuenen and Wellhausen {Prol.^ 116) that
the disparity of priests and Levites is accentuated in the later strata of
P as compared with P«, but that it is not recognised in P? is not clear.
As to pre-Exilic origin, the positive arguments advanced by Pro. are
not very cogent ; and it is doubtful whether, even on his own ground,
he has demonstrated more than the possibility of so early a date. In
Genesis, the only fact which points in that direction is one not mentioned
by Pro. viz. that the priestly Table of Nations in ch. 10 bears internal
:
evidence of having been drawn up some considerable time before the

5th century B.C. (p. 191 below) but that may be sufficiently explained
;
by the assumption that the author of P^ made use of pre-existing docu-

ments in the preparation of his work.
The last distinguishable stage in the formation of the

Pent, is the amalgamation of P with the older documents,
— in Genesis the amalgamation of P^ with JE. That this
process has left traces in the present text is quite certain
a priori \ though it is naturally difficult to distinguish

redactional changes of this kind from later explanatory
glosses and modifications (cf. 6^ y7. 22. 23 jq24 2^46 etc.). The
aim of the redactor was, in general, to preserve the ipsissima
Ixvi INTRODUCTION
verba of his sources as far as was consistent with the pro-

duction of a complete and harmonious narrative ; but he
appears to have made it a rule to find a place for every
fragment of P that could possibly be retained. It is not
improbable that this rule was uniformly observed by him,
and that the slight lacuncB which occur in P after ch. 25
are due to the activity of later scribes in smoothing away
redundancies and unevennesses from the narrative. That
such changes might take place after the completion of the
Pent, we see from 47^^*, where ®
has preserved a text in
which the dovetailing of sources is much more obvious than
in MT. —
If the lawbook read by Ezra before the congrega-
tion as the basis of the covenant (Neh. 8^^-) was the entire
Pent, (excepting late additions),* the redaction must have
been effected before 444 B.C., and in all probability the
redactor was Ezra himself. On the other hand, if (as seems
to the present writer more probable) Ezra's lawbook was
only the Priestly Code, or part of it (P^ + P^),t then the
final redaction brought down to a later period, the ter-
is
minus ad quern being the borrowing of the Jewish Pent, by

the Samaritan community. That event is usually assigned,
though on somewhat precarious grounds, to Nehemiah's
second term of office in Judaea* (c. 432 B.C.).
Of far greater interest and significance than the date
or manner of this final redaction, is the fact that it was
called for by the religious feeling of post-Exilic Judaism.
Nothing else would have brought about the combination
of elements so discordant as the naive legendary narratives
of JE and the systematised history of the Priestly Code.
We can hardly doubt that the spirit of the Priestly theology
is antipathetic to the older recension of the tradition, or
that, if the tendencies represented by the Code had pre-
vailed, the stories which are to us the most precious and
edifying parts of the Book of Genesis would have found no
place in an authoritative record of God's revelation of
Himself to the fathers. But this is not the only instance
* So We. Di. Kit. al. f So Corn. Ho. al.

—
INTRODUCTION 1 XVll
in which the spiritual insight of the Church has judged

more wisely than the learning of the schools. We know
that deeper influences than the legalism and institutionalism
of P's manifesto — necessary as these were in their place
were at work in the post-Exilic community : the individualism
of Jeremiah, the universalism of the second Isaiah, the
devotion and lyric fervour of the psalmists, and the daring
reflexion of the writer of Job. And to these we may surely
add the vein of childlike piety which turned aside from the
abstractions and formulas of the Priestly document, to find
its nutriment in the immortal stories through which God
spoke to the heart then, as He speaks to ours to-day.

COMMENTARY,
THE PRIMAEVAL HISTORY.

Chs. I-XI.
It has been shown in the Introduction (p. xxxiii) that the most obvious
division of the book of Genesis is into four nearly equal parts, of
which
the first (chs. and the history
i-ii) deals with the Creation of the world,
of primitive mankind prior to the call of Abraham. These chapters are
composed of excerpts from two of the main sources of the Pent, the
Priestly Code, and the Yahwistic document. Attempts have been made
from time to time {e.^. by Schrader, Dillmann, and more recently
Winckler) to trace the hand of the Elohist in chs. i-ii but the closest ;
examination has failed to produce any substantial evidence that E is

represented in the Primitive History at all. By the g-reat majority of
critics the non-Priestly traditions in this part of Genesis are assigned
to the Yahwistic cycle that is to say, they are held to have been
:
collected and arranged by the school of rhapsodists to whose literary

activity we owe the document known as J.
To the Priests' Code, whose constituents can here be isolated with,
great certainty and precision, belong: i. The Cosmogony (1^-2^);
2. The List of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah (5) 3. An account of
;
the Flood (6^-929*); 4. A Table of Peoples (10*) 5. The Genealogies

;
of Shem (iiô-ê), and Terah (ii^^-ss*), ending with Abraham. There

is no reason to suppose either that the original P contained more than
this, or, on the other hand, that P was written to supplement the older
tradition, and to be read along with it. It is in accordance with the
purpose and tendency of the document that the only events recorded in
detail — —
the Creation and the Flood are those which inaugurate two
successive World-ages or Dispensations, and are associated with the
origin of two fundamental observances of Judaism the Sabbath (2^), —
and the sanctity of the blood (9^^')'
In marked contrast to the formalism of this meag^re epitome is the
* The asterisk denotegthat the passages so marked are interspersed

with extracts fr^^^^fdher source. The detailed analysis will be found
in the commenP^fl^K^je various sections.
I
2 GENESIS
rich variety of and incident which characterises the Yahwistic

life
sections, viz. :The Creation and Fall of Man (2^^-3^^) 2. Cain and
i. ;
Abel (4^-1^) 3. The Genealogy of Cain (4"-24) 4. A fragmentary Sethite

; ;
Genealogy (4^^^- 5^^

. .
) 5- The marriagfes with divine beings (G^-*);
. . . . ;
6. An account of the Flood (6^-8^^*); 7, Noah's Curse and Blessing

(920-27); 8. A Table of Peoples (10*); 9. The Tower of Babel (ii^-^);
10. A fragment of the Genealogy of Terah (ii^^-Ô). Here we have a

whole gallery of varied and graphic pictures, each complete in itself and
essentially independent of the rest, arranged in a loosely chronological
order, and with perhaps a certain unity of conception, in so far as they
illustrate the increasing wickedness that accompanied the progress of
mankind in civilisation. Even the genealogies are not (like those of P)
bare lists of names and figures, but preserve incidental notices of new
social or religious developments associated with particular personages
(^^17. i;o-22. 26 ^29)^ bcsidcs other allusions to a more ancient mythology
from which the names have been drawn (4^*** ^- ^^•).

—
Composition of J. That a narrative composed of so many separate
and originally independent legends should present discrepancies and
discontinuities is not surprising, and is certainly by itself no proof of
literary diversity. At the same time there are many indications that
J is a composite work, based on older collections of Hebrew traditions,
whose outlines can still be dimly traced. (1) The existence of two
parallel genealogies (Cainite and Sethite) at once suggests a conflate
tradition. The impression is raised almost to certainty when we find
that both are derived from a common original (p. 138 f. ). (2) The Cainite
genealogy is incompatible with the Deluge tradition. The shepherds,
musicians, and smiths, whose origin is traced to the last three members
of the genealogy, are obviously not those of a bygone race which perished
in the Flood, but those known to the author and his contemporaries
(p. 115 f.). (3) Similarly, the Table of Nations and the story of the
Confusion of Tongues imply mutually exclusive explanations of the
diversities of language and nationality in one case the division proceeds
:
slowly and naturally on genealogical lines, in the other it takes place

by a sudden interposition of almighty power. (4) There is evidence
that the story of the Fall was transmitted in two recensions (p. 52 f).
If Gunkel be right, the same is true of J's Table of Peoples, and of the
account of the Dispersion but there the analysis is less convincing.
;
(5) In 4^^ we read that Enosh introduced the worship of Yahwe. The
analogy of Ex. (y-^- (P) affords a certain presumption that the author of
such a statement will have avoided the name ni.T up to this point and ;
as a matter of fact D'h"*?^ occurs immediately before in vJ^. It is true

that the usage is observed in no earlier Yahwistic passage except -^'^y
where other explanations might be thought of. But throughout chs. 2
and 3 we find the very unusual compound name D'n'^N nin'', and it is a
plausible conjecture that one recension of the Paradise story was dis-
tinguished by the use of Elohim, and that Yahwe was inserted by a
harmonising Yahwistic editor (so Bu. Gu. al. see P- 53)' :
To what precise extent these phenomena ara^^'^^Xo documentary

differences is a question that requires to be h/ \th the utmost
caution and discrimination. It is conceivabW Single author
—
I-XI
should have compiled a narrative from a number of detached legends

which he reported just as he found them, regardless of their internal
consistency. Nevertheless, there seems sufficient evidence to warrant
the conclusion that (as Wellhausen has said) we have to do not merely
with aggregates but with sequences although to unravel perfectly the
;
various strands of narrative may be a task for ever beyond the re-
sources of literary criticism. Here it will suffice to indicate the principal
theories. — (a)
4i-i6a
We. {Comp."^ 9-14) seems to have been the first to per-
ceive that is a. late expansion based (as he supposed) on 4I6-24
and on chs. that originally chs. 2-4 existed not only without 4^-isa,
2, 3 ;
but also without ^^^' and 5^9; and that chs. 2. 3. 4IS-24 iii-9 form a
connexion to which the story of the Flood is entirely foreign and
irrelevant. {b) The analysis was pushed many steps further by Budde
{Bihltsche Urgeschichte, pass.), who, after a most exhaustive and
elaborate examination, arrived at the following theory the primary :
document (J^) consisted of 2'^^'^ 16-25 ^1-19. 21 ^z ^tz î. 2b/3. i6b. 17-24
51. 2.4.JQ9 jji-9 g2o-27^ This was recast by J^ (substituting D'n^« for
ni.T down to 4^), whose narrative contained a Cosmogony (but no
Paradise story), the Sethite genealogy, the Flood-legend, the Table of
Nations, and a seven-membered Shemite genealogy. These two re-
censions were then amalgamated by J^, who inserted dislocated
passages of J^ in the connexion of J^, and added 4^-15 5^9 etc. J^
attained the dignity of a standard official document, and is the authority
followed by P at a later time. The astonishing acumen and thorough-
ness which characterise Budde's work have had a great influence on
critical opinion, yet his ingenious transpositions and reconstructions of
the text seem too and arbitrary to satisfy any but a slavish
subtle
disciple. One he has worked on too narrow a basis by con-
feels that
fining his attention to successive overworkings of the same literary
tradition, and not making sufficient allowance for the simultaneous
existence of relatively independent forms. (c) Stade (ZATW, xiv. —
274 fF. [= Ak. Reden u. Abh. 244-251]) distinguishes three main strata:
(i) chs. 2. 3. 1
1 1-9; (2) 42«f- 17-22920-27 io9? 61-2?; the Flood-legend,
(3)
added later to the other two, by a redactor who also compiled a Sethite
genealogy (425*- s^^ ) and inserted the story of Cain and Abel, and
. . . . . .
the Song of Lamech i^^^-). —

{d) Gunkel {Gen^ i ff.) proceeds on some-
what different lines from his predecessors. He refuses in principle
to admit incongruity as a criterion of source, and relies on certain
verses which bear the character of connecting links between different
sections. The most important is 5^^ (belonging to the Sethite genealogy),
where we read **This (Noah) shall comfort us from our labour and
:
from the toil of our hands on account of the ground which Yahwe has
cursed." Here there is an unmistakable reference backward to 3^',
and forward to 920^-. Thus we obtain a faultless sequence, forming
the core of a document where nin' was not used till 4^8, and hence called
J% consisting of: one recension of the Paradise story; the (complete)
Sethite genealogy and Noah's discovery of wine.
; From this sequence
are excluded obv^^^îjLthe second recension of the Paradise story the
:
;
Cainite genealo^|J|to\ (as Gu. thinks) the Flood-legend, where Noah

appears in quite ^^^K-Int character these belong to a second docu- :
— : ;
CREATION (p)
ment (JJ). Again, 9^^^* fomi a connecting link between the Flood and the
Table of Nations but Gu. distinguishes two Yahwistic strata in the
;
Table of Nations and assigns one to each of his documents similarly :
with the section on the Tower of Babel. The legend of Cain and
Abel is regarded (with We. Bu. Sta. al.) as an editorial expansion.
In this commentary the analysis of Gu. is adopted in the main ;
but with the following reservations (i) The account of the Flood :
cannot be naturally assigned to J-", because of its admitted incompati-

bility with the assumption of the Cainite genealogy (see above). Gu.,
indeed, refuses to take such inconsistencies into account but in that ;
case there is no reason for giving the Flood to JJ rather than to J^

There is no presumption whatever that only two documents are in
evidence and the chapters in question show peculiarities of language
;
which justify the assumption of a separate source (Sta.), say ]^.

(2) With the Flood passage goes the Yahwistic Table of Peoples
(9^^^*). The arguments for two Yahwists in ch. 10 are hardly decisive ;
and J^ at all events had no apparent motive for attaching an ethno-

graphic survey to the name of Noah. (3) Gunkel's analysis of 11^"*
appears on the whole to be sound but even so there is no ground for
;
identifying the two components with J« and JJ respectively. On the

contrary, the tone of both recensions has a striking affinity with that
of JJ note especially (with We.) the close resemblance in form and
:
substance between 1 1^ and 3^^^ Thus

Jj
^ ^20-22. 24 ^17-24 ^l-A j jl-g .
Je — 24b_-il9*-23 .25f. . . . c2» . . ,

gaO-a? .
Jd = 65-822* glSf. 10*;

Jr = ^^1-16*^
Such constructions, it need hardly be added, are in the highest

degree precarious and uncertain and can only be regarded as tentative
;
explanations of problems for which it is probable that no final solution

will be found.
I. I -II. 3. Creation of the World in Six Days: Institution

of the Sabbath.
A short Introduction describing the primaeval chaos
(i^-2) is followed by an account of the creation of the
world in six days, by a series of eight divine fiats, viz. :
(i) the creation of light, and the separation of light from

darkness, ^"^ the division of the chaotic waters into
; (2)
two masses, one above and the other below the 'firmament,'
^~^
(3) the separation of land and sea through the collect-
;
^-
ing of the lower waters into *'one place," ^^ ; (4) the
clothing of the earth with its mantle of vegetation, ^^"^^
(5) the formation of the heavenly bo^g^^^-i^

bogl^'' ; (6) the
20-23.
peopling of sea and air with fishes i^^Bfds, ^^j
W>
I. i-II. 3 5
24. 25
the production of land animals, ^nd (8) the creation .
of man, ê-si. Finally, the Creator is represented as

resting from His works on the seventh day; and this
becomes the sanction of the Jewish ordinance of the weekly
Sabbath rest {2^-^).
—
Character of the Record. It is evident even from this
bare outline of its contents that the opening section of
Genesis is not a scientific account of the actual process
through which the universe originated. It is a world
unknown to science whose origin is here described, —the
world of antique imagination, composed of a solid expanse
of earth, surrounded by and resting on a world-ocean, and
surmounted by a vault called the 'firmament,' above which
again are the waters of a heavenly ocean from which the
rain descends on the earth (see on vv.^"^).^ That the
writer believed this to be the true view of the universe, and
that the narrative expresses his conception of how it actu-
ally came into being, we have, indeed, no reason to doubt
(Wellhausen, Prol.^ 296). But the fundamental differ-
ence of standpoint just indicated shows that whatever the

significance of the record may be, it is not a revelation of
* The above seems to me to impose an absolute veto

fact referred to
on the attempt harmonise the teaching of the chapter with scientific
to
theory. It may be useful, however, to specify one or two outstanding-
difficulties of detail, (i) It is recognised by all recent harmonists that
the definition of 'day' as 'geological period' is essential to their
theory : it is exegetically indefensible. (2) The creation of sunand
moon after the earth, after the alternation of day and night, and even
after the appearance of plant-life, are so many scientific impossibilities.
(3) Palaeontology shows that the origin of vegetable life, if it did not
actually follow that of animal life, certainly did not precede it by an
interval corresponding to two 'days.' (4) The order in which the
various living forms are created, the manner in which they are grouped,
and their whole development compressed into special periods, are all
opposed to geological evidence. For a thorough and impartial
discussion of these questions see Driver, Genesis, 19-26. It is there
shown conclusively, not only that the modern attempts at reconciliation
fail, but (what is more important) that the point at issue is not one of
science, but simply of exegesis. The facts of science are not in dispute ;
the only question whether the language of Genesis will bear the
is
construction whiC|bCfee harmonising scientists find it necessary to put

upon it.
m
6 CREATION (p)
physical fact which can be brought into line with the results
of modern science. The key to its interpretation must be
found elsewhere.
In order to understand the true character of the narra-
tive, we must compare it with the cosmogonies which form
an integral part of all the higher religions of antiquity. The
demand for some rational theory of the origin of the world
as known or conceived is one that emerges at a very early
stage of culture and the efforts of the human mind in this
;
direction are observed to follow certain common lines of

thought, which point to the existence of a cosmologlcal
tradition exerting a widespread influence over ancient specu-
lation on the structure of the universe. There is ample
evidence, as will be shown later (below, p. 45 if.), that the
Hebrew thinkers were influenced by such a tradition ; and
in this fact we find a clue to the inner meaning of the
narrative before us. The tradition was plastic, and there-
fore capable of being moulded in accordance with the genius
of a particular religion ; at the same time, being a tradi-
tion, it retained a residuum of unassimilated material
derived from the common stock of cosmological speculation
current in the East. What happened in the case of the
biblical cosmogony is this : that during a long development
within the sphere of Hebrew religion it was gradually
stripped of its cruder mythological elements, and trans-
formed into a vehicle which were
for the spiritual ideas
the peculiar heritage of Israel. and It is to the depth
purity of these ideas that the narrative mainly owes that
character of sobriety and sublimity which has led many to
regard it as the primitive revealed cosmogony, of which all
others are grotesque and fantastic variations (Dillmann,
p. 10).
The religious significance of this cosmogony lies, there-
fore, in the fact that in it the monotheistic principle of the
Old Testament has obtained classical expression. The great
idea of God, first proclaimed in all its breadth and fulness by
the second Isaiah during the Exile, is h er^ embodied in a
•
\^^B|e, which
detailed account of the genesis of the lays
—
I. i-II. 3
7
hold of the imagination as no abstract statement of the

principle could ever do. The central doctrine is that the
—that
(
world is created^ it originates in the will of God, a ;
personal Being transcending the universe and existing

independently of it. The pagan notion of a Theogony
a generation of the gods from the elementary world-matter
— is entirely banished. It is, indeed, doubtful if the repre-
sentation goes so far as a creatio ex nihilo^ or whether
a pre-existent chaotic material is postulated (see on v.^)*,
it is certain at least that the kosmosy the ordered world with

which alone man has to do, is wholly the product of divine
intelligence and volition. The spirituality of the First
Cause of all things, and His absolute sovereignty over the
material He employs, are further emphasised in the idea of
—
the word of God the effortless expression of His thought
—
and purpose as the agency through which each successive
effect is produced and also in the recurrent refrain which
;
affirms that the original creation in each of its parts was

'good,' and as a whole 'very good' (v.^^), i.e. that it
perfectly reflected the divine thought which called it into

existence. The traces of mythology and anthropomorphism
which occur in the body of the narrative belong to the
traditional material on which the author operated, and do
not affect his own theological standpoint, which is defined
by the doctrines just enumerated. When to these we add
the doctrine of man, as made in the likeness of God, and
marked out as the crown and goal of creation, we have a
body of religious truth which distinguishes the cosmogony
of Genesis from all similar compositions, and entitles it to
rank among the most important documents of revealed
religion.
^
—
The Framework. The most noteworthy literary feature of the record
is the use of a set of stereotyped formulae, by which the separate acts
of creation are reduced as far as possible to a common expression. The
structure of this * framework (as it may be called) is less uniform than
'
might be expected, and is much more

regular in (& than in MT. It
is impossible to decide how due to the original
far the irregularities are
writer, and how far to errors of transmission. Besides the possibility
of accident, we have to allow on the one hand for the natural tendency
8 CREATION (p)
of copyists to rectify apparent anomalies, and on the other hand for

deliberate omissions, intended to bring- out sacred numbers in the occur-
rences of the several formulae.*
The facts are of some importance, and may be summarised here :
(a) The fiat (And God said, Let

introduces (both in . . and
. ) MT
ffi) each of the eight works of creation (vv> «•»•"• i*- ô- 24. 26)_ (j)
And it was so occurs literally 6 times in MT, but virtually 7 times :
i.e. in connection with all the works except the sixth (vv.f'^- '•
^- "• ^''•
2*-
8"); in aSc also in v. 20. (c) The execution of the fiat (And God
made . . . —with variations) is likewise recorded 6 times in MT and
7 times in (& (vv.'- [»J- 12- 16. 21. 25.27), (^ The sentence of divine
approval (And God saw that it was good) is pronounced over each
work except the second (in ffir there also), though in the last instance
^"^ ^2. 18. 21. 26. 8i^
with a significant variation: see vv. *• (^) jjie t^^^-
naming of the objects created {And God called . . . ) is peculiar to

the three acts of separation (vv,^- 8-
^*').
(/) And God blessed . . .
(3 times) is and eighth works and of the Sabbath

said of the sixth
day (vv.2-' ^ 2^). {g) The division into days is marked by the clos-
ing- formula, And it was evening, etc., which, of course, occurs 6 times
^yy 5. 8. 13. 19. 23. 31)^ being omitted after the third and seventh works.
The occurrence p 'n'l before the execution of the fiat produces a
of the
redundancy which may
be concealed but is not removed by substituting
so for and in the translation {So God made, etc.). When we observe
further that in 5 cases out of the 6 (in dr 5 out of 7) the execution is
described as a work, that the correspondence between fiat and fulfilment
is often far from complete, and finally that 2^ seems a duplicate of 2^,
the question arises whether all these circumstances do not point to a

literary manipulation, in which the conception of creation as a series of
fiats has been superimposed on another conception of it as a series of
works. The observation does not carry us very far, since no analysis
of sources can be founded on it but it is perhaps a slight indication of
;
what is otherwise probable, viz. that the cosmogony was not the free
composition of a single mind, but reached its final form through the
successive efforts of many writers (see below), f
—
The Seven Days' Scheme. The distribution of the eig^ht works over
six days has appeared to many critics (Ilgen, Ewald, Schrader, We.
Di. Bu. Gu. al.) a modification introduced in the interest of the
Sabbath law, and at variance with the original intention of the cos-
mogony. Before entering on that question, it must be pointed out that
*A is the 'ten sayings' of Pirki 'Abdth, 5,

familiar instance i:
oViyn Nn33 nnoNO mcyn, where the number 10 is arrived at by adding to
the 8 fiats the two other occurrences of ncN'i in MT (vv.^s- 29).
t See, now, Sta. BTh. i. 349 and Schwally in ARW, ix. 159-175,
which have appeared since the above paragraph was written. Both
writers point out the twofold conception of the creation which runs
through the chapter and Schwally makes out a strong case for the
;
composition of the passage from two distinct recensions of the

cosmogony.
;
i-II. 3
I.
9
the adjustment ot days to works proceeds upon a clear principle, and
results in a symmetrical arrangement. Its effect is to divide the creative
process into two stages, each embracing four works and occupying
three days, the last day of each series having two works assigned to
it. There is, moreover, a remarkable, though not perfect, parallelism
between the two great divisions. Thus the Jirst day is marked by the
creation of light, and the fourth by the creation of the heavenly bodies,
which are expressly designated light-bearers
'
on the second day the
' ;
waters which afterwards formed the seas are isolated and the space
between heaven and earth is formed, and so the fifth day witnesses the
peopling of these regions with their living denizens (fishes and fowls) on
;
the third day the dry land emerges, and on the sixth terrestrial animals
and man are created. And it is hardly accidental that the second work
of the third day (trees and grasses) corresponds to the last appointment
of the sixth day, by which these products are assigned as the food of
men and animals. Broadly speaking, therefore, we may say that "the
first three days are days of preparation, the next three are days of
accomplishment" (Dri. Gen. 2). Now whether this arrangement belongs

to the original conception of the cosmogony, or at what stage it was
introduced, are questions very difficult to answer. Nothing at all re-
sembling it has as yet been found in Babylonian documents ; for the
division into seven tablets of the Enuma eliS series has no relation to
the seven days of the biblical account.*' If therefore a Babylonian
origin is assumed, it seems reasonable to hold that the scheme of days
is a Hebrew addition ; and in that case it is hard to believe that it
can have been introduced without a primary reference to the dis-
tinctively Israelitish institution of the weekly Sabbath. It then only
remains to inquire whether we can go behind the present seven days'
scheme, and discover in the narrative evidence of an earlier arrange-
ment which either ignored the seven days altogether, or had them in a
form different from what we now find.
The latter position is maintained by We. {Comp.^ 187 ff^.), who holds
that the scheme of days is a secondary addition to the framework
as it came from the hand of its Priestly author (Q). In the original
cosmogony of Q a division into seven days was recognised, but in a
different form from what now obtains it was moreover not carried
;
through in detail, but merely indicated by the statement of 2^ that

God finished His work on the seventh day. The key to the primary
arrangement he finds in the formula of approval, the absence of
which after the second work he explains by the consideration that the
separation of the upper waters from the lower and of the lower from
the dry land form really but one work, and were so regarded by Q.
Thus the seven works of creation were (i) separation of light from
darkness; (2) separation of waters (w.^'^") (3) creation of plants
;
(4) luminaries (5) fish and fowl

; ; (6) land animals (7) man.; The state-
ment that God finished His work on the seventh day We. considers
• See below, p. 43 ff. On the other hand there are Persian and
Etruscan analogies see p. 50.
;
—
lO CREATION (p)
a six days' creation, and also with the view that

to be inconsistent with
the seventh was a day of rest hence in ch. 2, he deletes "* and ^^,
;
and reads simply: "and God finished His work which He made on the
seventh day, and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it."
This theory has been subjected to a searching criticism by Bu.
{Urgesch. 487 fF. ; cf. also Di. 15), who rightly protests against the
subsuming of the creation of heaven and that of land and sea under
one rubric as a 'separation of waters,' and gets rid of the difficulty
presented by 2^^* by reading sixth instead of sevefith (see on the verse).
Bu. urges further that the idea of the Sabbath as a day on which
work might be done is one not likely to have been entertained in the
circles from which the Priestly Code emanated,* and also (on the
ground of Ex. 20") that the conception of a creation in six days followed
by a divine Sabbath rest must have existed in Israel long before the
—
age of that document. It is to be observed that part of Bu.'s argument
(which as a whole seems to me valid against the specific form of the
theory advanced by We.) only pushes the real question a step further
back and Bu. himself, while denying that the seven days' scheme
;
is secondary to P, agrees with Ew. Di. and many others in thinking
that there was an earlier Hebrew version of the cosmogony in which that
scheme did not exist.
The improbability that a disposition of the cosmogony in eight
works should have obtained currency in Hebrew circles without an
attempt to bring it into some relation with a sacred number has been
urged in favour of the originality of the present setting (Holzinger, 23 f.).
That argument might be turned the other way for the very fact that
;
the number 8 has been retained in spite of its apparent arbitrariness

suggests that it had some traditional authority behind it. Other
objections to the originality of the present scheme are {a) the juxta-
:
position of two entirely dissimilar works under the third day (6) the
;
separation of two closely related works on the second and third days ;
{c) the alternation of day and night introduced before the existence of
the planets by which their sequence is regulated (thus far Di. 15), and
{d) the unnatural order of the fourth and fifth works (plants before
heavenly bodies). These objections are not all of equal weight and ;
explanations more or less plausible have been given of all of them.

But on the whole the evidence seems to warrant the conclusions that :
the series of works and the series of days are fundamentally incon-
gruous, that the latter has been superimposed on the former during the
Heb. development of the cosmogony, that this change is responsible for
some of the irregularities of the disposition, and that it was introduced
certainly not later than P, and in all probability long before his time.
—
Source and Style. As has been already hinted, the section belongs
to the Priestly Code (P). This is the unanimous opinion of all critics
who accept the documentary analysis of the Hexateuch, and it is
abundantly proved both by characteristic words and phrases, and
general features of style. Expressions characteristic of P are (be-
sides the divine name 'n'?N) N-i3
: (see on v.^), nnpji n^J ^, pN wn
* See Jerome's polemical note, in Qucest., adloc.
—1
I. i-IT. 3 1
['n n'n] ^ 25. so^

nSaw^ 29. so^
p^ n. 10^ .^nni ms 2a. as, bon, bOT
12. 21. 24. 25^
.^^pj^
21.24.25.26.28.30^
p^^ p^ 20.21^ aâ.— Comp. the lists in
and nn'?in in
Di. p. I ; Gu. p. 107, and Off, i. 208-220 and for details see ;
the Commentary below. —

Of even greater value as a criterion of
authorship is the unmistakable literary manner of the Priestly his-
torian. The orderly disposition of material, the strict adherence to
a carefully thought out plan, the monotonous repetition of set phrase-
ology, the aim at exact classification and definition, and generally
the subordination of the concrete to the formal elements of composi-
tion these are all features of the 'juristic' style cultivated by this
—
:
school of writers, ** it is the same spirit that has shaped Gn. i and
—
Gn. 5" (Gu.). On the artistic merits of the passage very diverse
judgments have been pronounced. Gu., whose estimate is on the
whole disparaging, complains of a lack of poetic enthusiasm and
picturesqueness of conception, poorly compensated for by a marked
predilection for method and order. It is hardly fair to judge a prose
writer by the requirements of poetry and even a
critic so little partial
;
to P as We. is impressed by '* the majestic repose and sustained

grandeur" of the narrative, especially of its incomparable exordium
{Prol.^ 297). To deny to a writer capable of producing this impression
allsense of literary effect is unreasonable and it is perhaps near the ;
truth to say that though the style of P may, in technical descriptions or

enumerations, degenerate into a pedantic mannerism (see an extreme
case in Nu. 7), he has found here a subject suited to his genius, and one
which he handles with consummate skill. It is a bold thing to
desiderate a treatment more worthy of the theme, or more impressive
in effect, than we find in the severely chiselled outlines and stately
cadences of the first chapter of Genesis.
In speaking of the style of P it has to be borne in mind that we are
dealing with the literary tradition of a school rather than with the
idiosyncrasy of an individual. It has, indeed, often been asserted that
this particular passage is obviously the composition at one heat of a '
'
single writer; but that is improbable. If the cosmogony rests

ultimately on a Babylonian model, it '* must have passed through a
long period of naturalisation and of gradual assimilation to
in Israel,
the spirit of Israel's religion before could have reached its present
it
form" (Dri. Gen. 31). All, therefore, that is necessarily implied in

what has just been said is that the later stages of that process must
have taken place under the auspices of the school of P, and that its
work has entered very deeply into the substance of the composition.
Of the earlier stages we can say little except that traces of them remain
in those elements which do not agree with the ruling ideas of the last
editors. Bu. has sought to prove that the story had passed through
the school of J before being adopted by that of P that it was in fact ;
the form into which the cosmogony had been thrown by the writer
called J2. Of direct evidence for that hypothesis (such as would be
supplied by allusions to Gn. i in other parts of J^) there is none it is :
an inference deduced mainly from these premises (i) that the creation :
story shows traces of overworking which presuppose the existence of an

older Heb. recension (2) that in all other sections of the prehistoric
;
12 CREATION (p)
tradition P betrays his dependence on J^ and (3) that J^ in turn is

;
markedly dependent on Babylonian sources (see Urgesch. 463-496, and

the summary on p. 491 f.). Even if all these observations be well
founded, it is obvious that they fall far short of a demonstration of
Bu.'s thesis. It is a plausible conjecture so long- as we assume that
little was written beyond what we have direct or indirect evidence of
{ib. 463^) ; but when we realise how little is known of the diffusion of
literary activity in ancient Israel, the presumption that J^ was the par-
ticular writer who threw the Hebrew cosmogony into shape becomes
very slender indeed.
I. We are confronted at the outset by a troublesome

question of syntax which affects the sense of every member
of v.^. While all ancient Vns. and many moderns take the
verse as a complete sentence, others (following- Rashi and
Ibn Ezra) treat it as a temporal clause, subordinate either
to V.3 (Rashi, and so most) or v.^ (Ibn Ezra, apparently).

On the latter view the verse will read In the beginning of
:
Gods creating the heavens and the earth : rT'K^X'pzi being in

the const, state, followed by a clause as gen. (cf. Is. 29^,
Hos. i^ etc. and see G-K. § 130^; Dav. § 25). In a note

;
below reasons are given for preferring this construction to

the other; but a decision is difficult, and in dealing with
I. — n'E'Nn] The form

probably contracted from riTNl (cf. nnx^),
is
and therefore not derived from t^jî. It sig-nifies primarily the

directly
first (or hes£) part of a thing Gn. io^° (' nucleus '), 49^ ('first product'),
:
Dt. 33-^, Am. 6^ etc. (On its ritual sense as the first part of crops, etc.,
see Gray's note, Num. 226 ff.). From this it easily glides into a
temporal sense, as the first stage of a process or series of events Ho. :
9^° ('in its first stage '), Dt. ii^^ (of the year), Jb. 8'^ 40^^ (a man's life).
Is. 46^'' (starting point of a series), etc. We. {Prol.^ 386) has said
that Dt. 11^^ is the earliest instance of the temporal sense but the ;
distinction between 'first part' and 'temporal beginning' is so im-

palpable that not much importance can be attached to the remark. It is
of more consequence to observe that at no period of the language does
the temporal sense go beyond the definition already given, viz. the
first stage of a process, either explicitly indicated or clearly implied.
That being so, the prevalent determinate construction becomes

intelligible. That in its ceremonial sense the word should be used
absolutely was to be expected (so Lv. 2^^ [Nu. 18^^] Neh. 12^ with :
these may be taken also Dt. 33^^^). In its temporal applications it is

always defined by gen. or suff. except in Is. 46^°, where the antithesis
to nnnN inevitably suggests the intervening series of which 'n is the
initial phase. It is therefore doubtful if 'na could be used of an absolute
beginning detached from its sequel, or of an indefinite past, like rut^Nna
—
or nWs (see Is. i^, Gn. 13^). This brings us to the question of
— 1 — — — —;
1. 13
v.^ it Is necessary to leave the alternative open.In the

beginning^ be subordinate the reference of
If the clause
ri''SJ>N"i is defined by what immediately follows, and no further

question arises. But if it be an independent statement
beginning is used absolutely (as in Jn. i^), and two inter-
pretations become possible : {a) that the verse asserts the
creation {ex nihilo) of the primaeval chaos described in v.^
or (b) that it summarises the whole creative process
narrated in the chapter. The former view has prevailed
in Jewish and Christian theolog-y, and is still supported
by the weighty authority of We. But (i) it is not in

accordance with the usage of nÊJ'XI (see below) (2) it is not ;
required by the word create,' a created chaos is perhaps'

—
a contradiction (Is. 45^^ nK"^n ^nh-Ni>), and We. himself
syntax. Three constructions have been proposed (a) v.^ an inde- :
pendent sentence {all Vns. and the great majority of comm., including-
Calv. De. Tu, We. Dri.). In sense this construction (taking the
verse as superscription) is entirely free from objection it yields an :
easy syntax, and a simple and majestic opening-. The absence of the
art. tells against it, but is by no means decisive. At most it is a
matter of pointing-, and the sporadic Greek transliterations Bap-rjcrrjO
(Field, Hexap.), and Bapêd (Lagarde, Ankiind. 5), alongside of
Bpijaid, may show that in ancient times the first word was sometimes
read 'na. Even the Mass. pointing does not necessarily imply that the
word was meant as const. ; 'n is never found with art., and De. has
well pointed out that the stereotyped use or omission of art. with
certain words is governed by a subtle linguistic sense which eludes our
analysis {e.g. onigp, c'xn.p, njij'N-ta: cf. Kon. vS. § 294 g). The construction
seems to me, however, opposed to the essentially relative idea of 'n,
its express reference to that of which it is the beginning (see above).
[h) v.^ protasis: v.^ parenthesis: v.^ apodosis ; When God began
to create . . . noin the earth was . . . God said, Let there he light.
So Ra. Ew. Di.* Ho. Gu. al. practically all who reject (a). —
Although first appearing explicitly in Ra. (f 1 105), it has been argued
that this represents the old Jewish tradition, and that (a) came in under
* Who, however, considers the present text to be the result of a

redactional operation. Originally the place of v.^ was occupied by
2*a in its correct form : D'n'?N ON-13? pxm D'DB-n nn'?in rhv^. When this was
transposed was necessary to frame a new
it introduction, and in the
hands of the editor it assumed the form of v.^ (similarly, Sta. BTh.
i. 349). I am
unable to adopt this widely accepted view of the original
position of 2^ (see on the verse), and Di.'s intricate hypothesis would
seem to me an additional argument against it.
—
14 CREATION (p)
admits that it is a remarkable conception; and (3) it is
excluded by the object of that verb the heavens and the :
earth. For though that phrase is a Hebrew designation of the

universe as a whole, it is only the organised universe, not
the chaotic material out of which it was formed, that can
naturally be so designated. The appropriatename for
chaos is *
the earth ' (v.^) ; the representation being a
chaotic earth from which the heavens were afterwards made
(6f). The verse therefore (if an independent sentence at all)
must be taken as an introductory heading to the rest of the
chapter. "^ God created. \ The verb t<n3 contains the central
idea of the passage. It is partly synonymous with ^^V (cf.
VV.21- 27 with 25), but 2^ shows that it had a specific shade of

meaning. The idea cannot be defined with precision, but
the influence of ffi from a desire to exclude the idea of an eternal chaos
preceding the creation, f But the fact that ZP agrees with ©
militates
against that opinion. The one objection to {h) is the 'verzweifelt
geschmacklose Construction' (We.) which it involves. It is replied
(Gu. al) that such openings may have been a traditional feature of
creation stories, being found in several Bab. accounts, as well as in
On. 2^^'^. In any case a lengthy parenthesis is quite admissible in
good prose style (see i Sa. 3^)3-3, with Dri. Notes, ad loc), and may
be safely assumed here if there be otherwise sufficient grounds for
adopting it. The clause as gen. is perfectly regular, though it would
be easy to substitute inf. Kn? (mentioned but not recommended by Ra.).
(c) A third view, which perhaps deserves more consideration than it
has received, is to take v.^ as protasis and v.^ as apodosis, When '
God began to create the heavens and the earthy the earth was, etc' (lEz. ?
but see Cheyne, in Hebr. ii. 50). So far as sense goes the sequence
is eminently satisfactory •the "IDN'1 of v.^ is more natural as a con-
;
tinuation of V.2 than of v.^ The question is whether the form of

v.2 permits its being construed as apod. The order of words (subj.
before pred.) is undoubtedly that proper to the circumst. cl. (Dri. T.
§ 157 Dav. § 138 (c))
; but there is no absolute rule against an apod.
;
assuming this form after a time-determination (see Dri. T. § 78).

* The view that v.^ describes an earlier creation of heaven and earth,
which were reduced to chaos and then re-fashioned, needs no refutation.

t See Geiger, Urschr. 344, 439, 444. The Mechilta (on Ex. la*':
Winter and Wunsche's Germ, transl. p. 48) gives v.^ as one of thirteen
instances of things written for King Ptolemy
' and Gei. infers that
'
;
the change was deliberately made for the reason mentioned. The
reading alleged by Mech. is n'E'Nna xna D\n'?K, which gives the sense but
not the order of ffir. The other variations given are only partly verified
by our texts of ffi ; see on i^^f- 2^ 11' 18^^ 49^
— —
I., 15
the following- points are to be noted : (a) The most im-

portant fact used exclusively of divine activity
is that it is
a restriction to which perhaps no parallel can be found in

other languages (see We. Prol.^ 304). (d) The idea of
novelty (Is. 486'- 4120 651^^-, Jer. 31^^) or extraordinnriness

(Ex. Nu. 16^^
34^<>,
[J]) of result is frequently implied, and it
is noteworthy that this is the case in the only two passages

of certainly early date where the word occurs, [c] It is
probable also that it contains the idea of effortless production

(such as befits the Almighty) by word or volition^ (Ps. 33^).
[d) It is obvious (from this chapter and many passages)
that the sense stops short of creatio ex nihilo^ — an idea first
explicitly occurring in 2 Mac.

At the same time the 7^^.
facts just stated, and the further circumstance that the word
is always used with ace. of product and never of material,
constitute a long advance towards the full theological doc-

trine, and make the word create a suitable vehicle for it.
*
'
Close parallels (for it is hard to see that the M'1 makes any essential
difference) are Gn. f'^ (J), 22I (E), or (with impf.), Lv. f^^ (P). The
construction is not appreciably harsher than in the analogous case of
a'*, where it has been freely adopted. ni3] enters fully into OT usage
only on the eve of the Exile, Apart from three critically dubious
passages (Am. 4^^ Is. 4^ Jer. 31^^), its first emergence in prophecy
is in Ezk. (3 times) it is specially characteristic of II Is. (20 times), in
;
P 10 times, and in other late passages 8 times. The proof of pre-exilic

use rests on Ex. 34^", Nu. xG"^ (J), Dt. a^"^. There is no reason to doubt
that it belongs to the early language what can be fairly said is that
;
at the Exile the thought of the divine creation of the world became
prominent in the prophetic theology, and that for this reason the term
which expressed it technically obtained a currency it had not previously
enjoyed. The primary idea is uncertain. It is commonly regarded as
the root of a Piel meaning 'cut,' hence 'form by cutting,' 'carve'
'
fashion,' (Ar. hara?' , Phoen. vro \CIS, i. 347-*] see BDB, s.v. Lane, Lex.
:
;
^
197 b; Lidzbarski, NS
Epigr. 244 [with ?]) ; but the evidence of the
connexion is very slight. The only place where n"i.5 could mean
'carve* is Ezk. 2i2-**»^; and there the text is almost certainly corrupt
(see Corn., Toy, Kraetschmar, ad loc). Elsewhere it means 'cut
* The same thought was associated by

the Babylonians with their
word but the association seems accidental and
banii (see phil. note) ;
;
its significance is exaggerated by Gu. when he says "the idea of

creation is that man may form with his hands, the god brings to pass
through his word" {Schopf. 23). Band is quite synonymous with ipisH
(make), and is not restricted to the divine activity.
6 — — a
1 CREATION (p)
2. Description of Chaos. — It is perhaps impossible to

unite the features of the description in a single picture,
but the constitutive elements of the notion of chaos appear
to be Confusion (inai inn), Darkness, and Water (Dinn, D^n).
The weird effect of the languagê is very impressive. On
the syntax, see above. waste and void] The exact meaning"
of this alliterative phrase Toku wa-Bohu is difficult to —
make out. The words are nouns ; the connotation of inn
ranges from the concrete ' desert ' to the abstract * non-
entity '
; while inn possibly means 'emptiness' {v.i.). The
exegetical tendency has been to emphasise the latter aspect,
and approximate to the Greek notion of chaos as empty
down 23*'') or
' (Ezk. clear ground by hewing- down trees (Jos. 17^"' ^*
'
'
[J]) —a
sense as remote as possible from fashion or make (Di., G-B.
s.v.\ We. Prol.^ S^?)- The Ar. baraa (used chiefly of creation of animate
beings) is possibly borrowed from Heb. Native philologists connect
it, very unnaturally, with hart a, be free so that create means to '
' ;
' '
liberate (from the clay, etc.) (Lane, 178b, c): Di.'s view is similar.
Barth {ZA, iii. 58) has proposed to identify N13 (through mutation of
liquids) with the Ass. vb. for 'create,' banu\ but rejects the opinion
that the latter is the common Semitic n:3 'build' {KAT^, 498^), with
which N"i2 alternates in Sabsean (Miiller in ZDMG, xxxvii. 413, 415).
2. inai inn] i& ddparos /cat dKaracrKeâcrTOS Aq. ; K4vu}/xa k.ovOh ; S. apybv k.
dSidKptTov ; 9. Kevbv (or ov0^v) Kal ovdev ; U inanis et vaciia ; 2L° N':pni xnx
('desolate and empty ') Si OIQJDO OloZ. The fragmentary Jer. Tg-.
;
has a double trans. "And the earth was N'nai N'nn, and (cf. ^^) desolate
:
from the sons of men, and empty of work." inn occurs along- with in3
in Jer. 4^^, Is. 34^^ inn alone in 17 pass, besides.
; The meaning varies
between two extremes {a) a (trackless) desert (Jb. 12^^ [ = Ps. 107^] 6^^
:
Dt. 32^^), and {b) unsubstantiality (b'DD h pNS?, lEz.) or nonentity,' '
sense all but peculiar to II Is. (also i Sa. 12^^, and perhaps Is. 29^^), but
very frequent there. The primary idea is uncertain. It is perhaps
easier on the whole to suppose that the abstract sense of 'formlessness,'
or the like, gave rise to a poetic name for desert, than that the concrete
*
desert passed over into the abstract formlessness
' but we have no ' '
;
assurance that either represents the actual development of the idea. It

seems not improbable that the OT usage is entirely based on the
traditional description of the primaeval chaos, and that the word had no
definite connotation in Heb., but was used to express any conception
naturally associated with the idea of chaos formlessness,' confusion,' — '
'
*unreality,' etc. —
ina] (never found apart from inn) may be connected
with hahiya = be empty though Ar. is hardly a safe guide in the

'
' ;
case of a word with a long history behind it. The identification with
Baau, the mother of the first man in Phoen. mythology (see p. 49 f.), is
——
I. 2 17
Space? (Gu.). But our perhaps Jeremiah's

safest guide is
vision of Chaos-come-again which is simply that (4^^"^^),
of a darkened and devastated earth, from which life and

order have fled. The idea here is probably similar, with
this difference, that the distinction of land and sea is
effaced, and the earth, which is the subj. of the sentence,
must be understood as the amorphous watery mass in
which the elements of the future land and sea were com-
mingled. Darkness {sin almost invariable feature of ancient
conceptions of chaos) was upon the face of the Deep] The
Deep (Qinn) is the subterranean ocean on which the earth
rests (Gn. 7^^ 8^ 49^^, Am. 7* etc.) ; which, therefore,
before the earth was formed, lay bare and open to the
superincumbent darkness. In the Babylonian Creation-myth
the primal chaos is personified under the name Ti'amat.
The Heb. narrative is free from mythological associations,
and it is doubtful if even a trace of personification lingers in
the name Dinn. In Babylonian, tVamatu or tdmtu is a generic
term for *
ocean '
; and it is conceivable that this literal
sense may be the origin of the Heb. conception of the Deep

(see p. 47). The Spirit of God was brooding] not, as has
sometimes been supposed, a wind sent from God to dry
probable. —Dinn] is undoubtedly the philological equivalent of Bab.

Ttamat a connexion with Ar. Tihamat^ the Red. Sea littoral province
:
(Hoffmann in ZATW, iii. 118), is more dubious (see Lane, 320b, c;

Jensen, KIB, vi. i, 560). In early Heb. the word is rare, and always
(with poss. exception of Ex. i$^-^) denotes the subterranean ocean,
which is the source from which earthly springs and fountains are fed
(Gn. 4925, Dt. 3313, Am. 7^, and so Dt. 8^, Gn. 7^1 82(P); cf. Hom. //,
xxi. 195), and is a remnant of the primal chaos (Gn. i^, Ps. 104^,
Pr. 8'^'), used of the sea (pi. seas), and even
In later writings it is
of torrents of water (Ps. 42^) but, the passages being poetic, there is
;
probably always to be detected a reference to the world-ocean, either

as source of springs, or as specialised in earthly oceans (see Ezk. 26^^).
Though the word is almost confined to poetry (except Gn. i^ 7" 8^,
Dt. 8^, Am. 7*), the only clear cases of personification are Gn. 4925,
Dt. 33^2 {T^hSm that coucheth beneath). The invariable absence of the
art. (except with pi. in Ps. 106^, Is. 63^^) proves that it is a proper
name, but not that it is a personification (cf, the case of Vin?'). On the
other hand, it is noteworthy that Dinn, unlike most Heb. names of fluids,
is fem., becoming occasionally masc. only in later times when its primary
sense had been forgotten (cf. Albrecht, ZATW, xvi. 62) this might be :
2
8
1 CREATION (p)
up the waters and a few moderns), but the divine

{tH^j lEz.,
Spirit, figured as its nest, and perhaps
a bird brooding over
symbolising an immanent principle of life and order in the
as yet undeveloped chaos. Comp. Milton, Paradise Lost^
i. 19 fF., vii. 233 ff. It is remarkable, however, if this be
the idea, that no further effect is given to it in the sequel.
(1) The idea of the Spirit as formative principle of the

kosmos, while in the line of the OT doctrine that he is
the source of life (Ps. 33^ 1042^^-), yet goes much beyond
the ordinary representation, and occurs only here (possibly
Is. 40^^). (2) The image conveyed by the word brooding
(nsnip) is generally considered to rest on the widespread
cosmogonic speculation of the world-egg (so even De. and
Di.), in which the organised world was as it were hatched
from the fluid chaos. If so, we have here a fragment of
mythology not vitally connected with the main idea of the
narrative, but introduced for the sake of its religious
suggestiveness. In the source from which this myth was
borrowed the brooding power might be a bird-like deity *
(Gu.), or an abstract principle like the Greek "Epws, the
Phoen. ndôs, etc. for this the Heb. writer, true to his
:
monotheistic faith, substitutes the Spirit of God, and

thereby transforms a "crude material representation . . .
into a beautiful and suggestive figure " (DrI. Gen. 5).
due to an original female personification. nsn-'D] Gk. Vns. and — U

express merely the idea of motion (iirecpepeTo, iirKpepofiepov, ferehatur) ;
ô N32'3D (' blow ' Jerome {Qucest.)-. **in-

or 'breathe'); ,S j.21.K»;iiD.
cubabat sive confovebat in similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis."

It is impossible to say whether brood or hover is the exact image
'
'
*
'
here, or in Dt. 32^^, —

the only other place where the Pi. occurs (the
Qal in Jer. 23^ may be a separate root). The Syriac vb. has great
latitude of meaning; it describes, e.g., the action of Elisha in laying
himself on the bod}- of the dead child (2 Ki. 4^^) and is used of angels ;
hovering over the dying Virgin. It is also applied to a waving of the

hands (or of fans) in certain ecclesiastical functions, etc. (see Payne
Smith, Thes. 3886).
• In Polynesian mythology the supreme god Tangaloa is often

represented as a bird hovering over the waters (Waitz Gerland, -
Anthrop. vi. 241).

: ; '
I. 3, 4 19
The conceptions of chaos in antiquity fluctuate between that of

empty space (Hesiod, Arist. Lucr., etc.) and the 'rudis indig-estaque
moles of Ovid {Met. \. 7). The Babylonian representation embraces
'
the elements of darkness and water, and there is no doubt that this is
the central idea of the Genesis narrative. It is singular, however,
that of the three clauses of v.^ only the second (which includes the two
elements mentioned) exercises any influence on the subsequent descrip-
tion (for on any view the *
of the third must be identical with
waters '
the T^hom of the second). possible, therefore, that the verse

It is
combines ideas drawn from diverse sources which are not capable of
complete synthesis. Only on this supposition would it be possible to
accept Gu.'s interpretation of the first clause as a description of
empty space. In that case the earth is probably not inclusive of, but
contrasted with, T^hdm it denotes the space now occupied by the
:
earth, which being- empty leaves nothing but the deep and the
darkness.
3-5. First work : Creation of light. — [And] God

said] On
the connexion, see above, pp. 13 fF. and on the ;
significance of the fiat, p. 7. Let there he light] The —

thought of light as the first creation, naturally suggested
by the phenomenon of the dawn, appears in several cos-
mogonies but is not expressed in any known form of the
;
Babylonian legend. There the creator, being the sun-god,

is in a manner identified with the primal element of the
kosmos; and the antithesis of light and darkness is dramat-
ised as a conflict between the god and the Chaos monster.
In Persian cosmogony also, light, as the sphere in which
Mazda dwells, is uncreated and eternal (Tiele, Gesch. d. Rel.
ii. 295 f.). In Is. 45^ both light and darkness are creations
of Yahwe, but that is certainly not the idea here. Comp.
Milton's Parad. Lost, iii. i ff.
" Hail, holy Light offspring of heaven first-born

!
Or, of the Eternal co-eternal beam," etc.
4. saw that the light was good] The formula of approval

does not extend to the darkness, nor even to the coexistence
of light and darkness, but is restricted to the light. Good " '
'
expresses the contrast of God's which work to the chaos of

darkness is an element.
Gu. goes too far in suggesting
that the expression covers a strong anthropomorphism *
3. iiK 'nî corresponds to the p 'n'l of subsequent acts. — 4. 3it3 '3 niNn]
— —
20 CREATION (p)
(the possibility of failure, happily overcome). But he rightly

calls attention to the bright view of the world implied in the
series of approving verdicts, as opposed to the pessimistic
estimate which became common in later Judaism. And God
divided^ etc.\ To us these words merely suggest alternation
in time but Heb. conceives of a spatial distinction of light
;
and darkness, each in its own place or abode (Jb. 38^^'*). '
'
Even the separate days and nights of the year seem thought
of as having independent and continuous existence (Jb. 3*).
The Heb. mind had thus no difficulty in thinking of the existence of

light before the heavenly bodies. The sun and moon rule the day and
night, but light and darkness exist independently of them. It is a mis-
take, however, to compare this with the scientific hypothesis of a

cosmical light diffused through the nebula from which the solar system
was evolved. It is not merely light and darkness, but day and night,
and even the alternation of evening and morning (v.^), that are re-
presented as existing before the creation of the sun.
5. And God called^ etc.\ The name —that by which the

thing is summoned into the field of thought — belongs to
the full existence of the thing So in the first line of
itself.
the Babylonian account, '*the heaven was not yet named"

means that it did not yet exist. And it became evenings
etc.] Simple as the words are, the sentence presents some
difficulty, which is not removed by the supposition that the
writer follows the Jewish custom of reckoning the day from
with attracted obj. see G-K. § 117 A; Dav. § 146.—5. DV in popular

:
parlance denotes the period between dawn and dark, and is so used
in 5*. When it became necessary to deal with the 24-hours' day, it
was most natural to connect the night with the preceding period of
light, reckoning, i.e.., from sunrise to sunrise; and this is the prevail-
ing usage of OT (n'?''?i or). In post-exilic times we find traces of the
reckoning from sunset to sunset in the phrase DVi Th^h (j/uxîy/xepof), Is. 27'
341°, Est. 4^^ P regularly employs the form day and night and if
'
'
;
Lv. 23^2 can be cited as a case of the later reckoning, Ex. 12^^ is as
clearly in favour of the older (see Marti, EB, 1036 Konig, ZDMG, Ix. ;
605 flf.). There is therefore no presumption in favour of the less natural

method in this passage. — x")!?] MiV el, to avoid concurrence of two accented
syll.— n^:^] (also MiVel) a reduplicated form ('V;^ cf. Aram. N'"?^"?) see ; :
Noldekej Mand. Gr. § 109; Pratorius, ZATW, iii. 218; Kon. ii. §520.
— nnx Dv] 'a first day,' or perhaps better 'one day.' On nnx as ord. see
G-K. §§98 a, 134/ ; Dav. § 38, R. i but cf. Wellh. Prol.^ 387.
;
'
I. 5, 6 21
sunset to sunset (Tu. Gu. Ben. etc.). The Jewish day may
have begun at sunset, but it did not end at sunrise and it ;
is impossible to take the words as meaning- that the evening
and morning formed the first (second, etc.) day. Moreover,

there could be no evening before the day on which light
was created. The sentence must refer to the close of the
first day with the evening and the night that followed,
first
leading the mind forward to the advent of a new day, and

a new display of creative power (De. Di. Ho. al.). One
must not overlook the majestic simplicity of the statement.
The interpretation of DV as cson, a favourite resource of harmonists

of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of the passage,
and has no warrant in Heb. usage (not even Ps. 90^). It is true that
the conception of successive creative periods, extending over vast spaces
of time, is found in other cosmogonies (De. 55) ; but it springs in part
from views of the world which are foreign to the OT. To introduce
that idea here not only destroys the analogy on which the sanction of
the sabbath rests, but misconceives the character of the Priestly Code.
If the writer had had aeons in his mind, he would hardly have missed
the opportunity of stating how many millenniums each embraced.
6-8. Second work firmament. : The

The second —
fiat calls whose function is to
into existence a firmament^
divide the primaeval waters into an upper and lower ocean,
leaving a space between as the theatre of further creative
developments. The *' firmament" is the dome of heaven,
which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material
structure, sometimes compared to an "upper chamber"
(Ps. 104^^ Am. 9^) supported by *' pillars " (Jb. 26^^), and
resembling in its surface a ''molten mirror" (Jb. 37^^).
Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain
descends through '' windows "or '' doors " (Gn. 7^^ 8^, 2 Ki.
opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps. 78^^).

y2. i9j
The general idea of a forcible separation of heaven and earth
6. ii"pl] (fflr (TTe/j^WjCta, 'S Jirmamentum) a word found only In Ezk., P,

Ps. \Q^ i5o\ Dn. 12^ The absence of shows that it is a descriptive
art.
term, though the only parallels to such a use would be Ezk. i22f. 25f. jqI
(cf Phoen. ypnD='dish' [Blechschale] CIS, i. 90^; see Lidzb. 370, 421).
:
The idea not thinness or extension the sense beat thin

is solidity, :
*
belongs to the Pi. (Ex. 39^ etc.) and this noun is formed from the Qal,
;
which means either (intrans.) to 'stamp with the foot' (Ezk. 6^^), or
22 CREATION (p)
is widely diffused ; it is perhaps embodied in our word

'heaven '
(from heave P) and O.E. lift.'
'
A graphic illustra-
tion of it Egyptian pictures, where the god
is found in
Shu is seen holding aloft, with outstretched arms, the dark
star-spangled figure of the heaven-goddess, while the earth-
god lies prostrate beneath (see Je. ATLO^, 7).^ But the
special form in which it appears here is perhaps not fully
intelligible apart from the Bab. creation-myth, and the

climatic phenomena on which it is based (see below, p. 46).
Another interpretation of the firmament has recently been propounded

(Winckler, Hiinmels- u. Weltenhild, 25 ff. ATLO'^, 164, 174) which ;
identifies it with the Bab. supuk lame, and explains both of the Zodiac.
The view seems based on the highly artificial Bab. theory of a point-
for-point correspondence between heaven and earth, according to which
the Zodiac represents a heavenly earth, the northern heavens a heavenly
heaven (atmospheric), and the southern a heavenly ocean. But what-
ever be the truth about supuk same^ such a restriction of the meaning
of ypn is inadmissible in Heb. In Ps. 19^ Dn. 12^ it might be possible ;
but even there it is unnecessary, and in almost every other case it is

absolutely excluded. It is so emphatically in this chapter, where the
firmament is named heaven, and birds (whose flight is not restricted to 10°
on either side of the ecliptic) are said to fly in front of the firmament.' *
9, 10. Third work : Dry land and sea. —The shore-

less lower ocean, which remained at the close of the second
(trans.), 'stamp firm,' 'consolidate' (Is. 42^ etc.). It is curious that

the vb. used of the creation of the earth, never of heaven, except
is
Jb. 37^^ —
Snno '.ti] on ptcp. expressing permanence, see Dri. T. § 135,
—
5.— ^-j'3: Kon. 5. § 319 n. '>'!!?n] ffir supplies as subj. 6 0e6s. 7. J3 '.n] —
transposed in ffi to end of v.*', its normal position, if indeed it be not —
a gloss in both places (We.). 8. — ^
also inserts here the formula of
approval on its omission in Heb., see above, pp. 8, 9.
:
9. ?1|T] in this sense, only Jer. 3^^. For Dips read with fflr nipD =
'gathering-place,' as in v.^". Nestle {MM, 3) needlessly suggests
for the latter -Tipp, and for np', ni?\ nnnp] not —
from under' but simply '
—
'under' (see v.^°) G-K. § 119C2. -"iN-ini] juss. unapocopated, as often
;
near the principal pause G-K. § 109 a.— At the end of the v. dSc adds
; :
Kai ffVPi^x^V '^^ ^Sup TO viroKCLTU} tov ovpavov els ras crDJ'a7W7as avrujp /cat locpOr]
7} ^Tjpd : i.e. nvpyn N-ini Dn'ipp-'?x d^d^'H nnnp n^.x dêh x\^>\. The addition is
adopted by Ball, and the pi. avT(2v proves at least that it rests on a
Heb. original, Uwp being sing, in Greek (We.).— 10. '©:] the pi. (cf.
*Comp. also the Maori myth reported in Waitz, Anthrop. v\. 245 fF. ;
Lang, Custom and Myth, 45 ff.

—
I. 7-II 23
day, is now replaced by land and sea in their present con-

figuration . The expressions used : gathered together . . .
appear — seem to imply that the earth already existed as a

solid mass covered with water, as in Ps. 104^-^; but Di.
thinks the language not inconsistent with the idea of a
muddy mixture of earth and water, as is most naturally
suggested by v.^. Henceforth the only remains of the
original chaos are the subterranean waters
(commonly called
Tehdm, but inand streams '), and the
Ps. 24^ * sea '
*
circumfluent ocean on which the heaven rests (Jb. 26^**, Ps.

139^, Pr. 8^^), of which, however, earthly seas are parts.
We.'s argument, that vv.^'^° are the account of a single work

(above, p. 9 f), is partly anticipated by lEz., who points out that what
is here described is no true creation, but only a manifestation of what
was before hidden and a gathering of what was dispersed. On the

ground that earth and heaven were made on one day (2^), he is driven
to take TDN"i as plup., and assign vv.^- ^^ to the second day. Some
such idea may have
dictated the omission of the formula of approval at
the close of the second day's work.
11-13. Fourth work : Creation of plants. — The

appearing of the earth followed on the same day, not
is
inappropriately, by the origination of vegetable life. The

earth itself is conceived as endowed with productive powers
—a recognition of the principle of development not to be
explained as a mere imparting of the power of annual
renewal (Di.); see to the contrary v. ^^ compared with v.^*.
— II. Let the earth produce verdure^ t5K^'"n means fresh
*
young herbage,' and appears here to include all plants in
Gn. 49^', Dt. 33^^ Ps.^62*- [where it is construed as sing.] 24^ etc.) is
mostly poetic and late prose it is probably not numerical, but pi. of
;
extension like D^D, D\'?v', and therefore to be rendered as sg.

II. KB'T N-*yin] lit. 'vegetate vegetation,' the noun being ace. cognate
—
with the vb. 'p is d7r.Xe7. on the pointing with J/^//t^^(Baer-De. p.
;
74)
see Kon. i. § 42, 7. <S (« » C\^ L) must have read
as v.^^^ t^^-n Nîn
a?'H] CEr {ôT&vTiv xbprov) and TB treat the words as in annexion, contrary
to the accents and the usage of the terms. It is impossible to define
them with scientific precision and the twofold classification given
;
— —
above herb and tree is more or less precarious. It recurs, however,
in Ex. 9^5 10^2. 15 (aij j)^ g^j^j ti^g reasons for rejecting the other are, first.
—
24 CREATION (p)
the earliest stages of their growth ; hence the classification

of flora is not threefold — grass, herbs, trees (Di. Dri. al.)
but ^2vofo\d, the generic ii^l including the two kinds ^^'V
and yV (De. Gu. Ho. etc.). The distinction is based on the
methods of reproduction the one kind producing seed ;
merely, the other fruit which contains the seed. The v. —

continues (amending with the help of ^) grass producing :
seed after its kind, and fruit-tree producing fruit in which

(i.e. the fruit) is its (the tree's) seed after its (the tree's)
kind. —after its the earth\ comes in very
kind\ v.i. — upon
awkwardly it is difficult to find any suitable point of attach-
;
ment except with the principal verb, which, however, is too

remote.
14-19. Fifth work : The heavenly luminaries. —
On the parallelism wuth the first day's work see above,
p. 8f. The vv. describe only the creation of sun and
moon ; the clause and the stars in v.^^ appears to be an
the absence of before au-y and, second, the syntactic consideration that
1 ;
Nd as cognate ace. may be presumed to define completely the action

of the vb. —
Nt:'"! denotes especially fresh juicy herbage* (Pr. 27^) and
those grasses which never to appearance get beyond that stage. Dtyy,
on the other hand (unlike '"n), is used of human food, and therefore
includes cultivated plants (the cereals, etc.) (Ps. 104^*). fy] read fyi —
with A)a(5U5, and 3 Heb. MSS (Ball).— ircS, inroS] On form of suff.
see G-K. § 91 ^. ^
in v.^^ inserts the word after yni (rendering
—
strangely KaTh. yivos Kal Kad' o/iotonjra, and so v.^^), and later in the v.
(Karci y^v. els ofi.) transposes as indicated in the translation above. po] —
a characteristic word of P, found elsewhere only in Dt. 14"- ^** ^^- ^^ (from
Lv. 11), and (dubiously) Ezk. 47^°, —
everywhere with suff. The etymology
is uncertain. If connected with njiD^ (form, likeness), the meaning
would be form (Lat. species) but in usage it seems to mean simply
'
' ;
'kind,' the sg. suff. here being distributive: "according to its several
kinds." In Syr. the corresponding word denotes a family or tribe.
For another view, see Frd. Delitzsch, Prol. 143 f. 12. Nsim] One is —
tempted to substitute the rare NB'ini as in v.^^ (so Ball). After y]} ffl^ —
adds na Ball deletes the n£3 in v.".
:
14. n-iND 'H'] niN \T in v.^).

(II On the breach of concord, see G-K.
—
§1450; Dav. §1136. niND] a late word, is used of heavenly bodies in
Ezk. 32^, Ps. 74'^ it never means lamp exactly, but is often applied
;
'
'
collectively to the seven-armed lampstand of the tabernacle once it is ;
* In Ar. this sense is said to belong to 'wid, but Heb. abj; has no such
restriction.
—
— ©
'
I. 12-14 25
addition {v. 7.). The whole conception is as unscientific

(in modern sense) as it could be (a) in its geocentric
the
standpoint, (b) in making the distinction of day and night
prior to the sun, (c) in putting the creation of the vegetable
world before that of the heavenly bodies. Its religious
significance, however, is very great, inasmuch as it marks
the advance of Hebrew thought from the heathen notion of
the stars to a pure monotheism. To the ancient world, and
the Babylonians in particular, the heavenly bodies were
animated beings, and the more conspicuous of them were
associated or identified with the gods. The idea of them
as an animated host occurs in Hebrew poetry (Ju. 5^^,
Is. 40^^, Jb. 38^ etc.) ; but here it is entirely eliminated,

the heavenly bodies being reduced to mere luminaries^ i.e.
either embodiments of light or perhaps simply '

lamps
{v.L). It is possible, as Gu. thinks, that a remnant of the
old astrology lurks in the word dominion^ but whereas in
Babylonia the stars ruled over human affairs in general,
their influence here is restricted to that which obviously
depends on them, viz. the alternation of day and night, the
festivals, etc. Comp. Jb. 38^3, Ps. 136^-9 (Jer. 3i35). j^ jg
noteworthy that this is the only work of creation of which
the purpose is elaborately specified. luminaries (rih[i]N?p)]
i.e. bearers or embodiments of Hght. The word is used

most frequently of the sevenfold light of the tabernacle
used of the eyes (Pr. 15^°), and once of the divine countenance (Ps. 90^).
— 'B'H gen.
y'pnn] the isnot partitive but explicative: Dav. §24 (a). —
inserts at this point : d% (f>av(riv rijs yrjs, /cat dpxeiv rijs rj/j-ipai k. t. vvKrbi,
Kal. —nnNS] mnx are astrological portents such as the
In Jer. 10^ d^'Dett
heathen fear, and that is commonly taken as

the meaning here, though
it is not quite easy to believe the writer would have said the sun and
moon were made for this purpose.* If we take in its ordinary sense m
of 'token' or 'indication,' we might suppose it defined by the words
which follow. Tuch obtains a connexion by making the double ^=-hoth
. . and ("as signs, both for [sacred] seasons and for days and
.
years ") others by a hendiadys (" signs q/" seasons "). It would be less
:
* The prophetic passages cited by Dri. {Gen. 10^) all contemplate

a reversal of the order of nature, and cannot safely be appealed to as
illustrations of its normal functions.
— — —
26 CREATION (p)
(Ex. 25^ etc.) •, and to speak of it as expressing a markedly

prosaic view of the subject (Gu.) is misleading. in the
finnament^ etc.\ moving in prescribed paths on its lower
surface. This, however, does not justify the interpretation
of T^''\ as the Zodiac (above, p. 22). to separate between
the dayy etc.]. Day and night are independent entities ; but
they are now put under the rule of the heavenly bodies,
as their respective spheres of influence (Ps. 121^).—for signs
andforseasofiSy etc.] 0^1^^^ (seasons) appears never (certainly
not in P) to be used of the natural seasons of the year
(Ho. 2^1, Jer. 8''^
are figurative), but always of a time con-
ventionally agreed upon (see Ex. 9^), or fixed by some
circumstance. The commonest application is to the sacrea
seasons of the ecclesiastical year, which are fixed by the
moon (cf. Ps. 104^^). If the natural seasons are excluded,
this seems the only possible sense here ; and P's predilection
for matters of cultus makes the explanation plausible.
nhx (signs) is more difficult, and none of the explanations

given is entirely satisfactory {y.i.). — 16. for dominion over the
day . . . night] in the sense explained above; and so v.^®.
—and the stars] Since the writer seems to avoid on prin-
ciple the everyday names of the objects, and to describe
them by their nature and the functions they serve, the
clause is probably a gloss (but v.i.). On the other hand, it
would be too bold an expedient to supply an express naming
of the planets after the analogy of the first three works
(Tu.).
The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies is

confused, and suggests overworking (Ho.). The clauses which most
excite suspicion are the two beginning with vni (the difficult ^^'' and
i6a«j .—note in particular the awkward repetition of 'IJI nnNO^. The
violent to render the first 1 und zwar {videlicet)', "as signs, and that
for seasons," etc. ; see BDB,
where some of the examples come,
s. 1 i. b,
at any rate, very near the sense proposed. Olshausen arrives at the
same sense by reading 'iD^ simply [MBA, 1870, 380). 16. '^n nxi] Dri. —
{Hehr. ii, 33) renders "and the lesser light, as also the stars, to rule,"
etc. The construction is not abnormal but would the writer have ;
said that the stars rule the night ? 18. ^"i^nV;] On the comp. sheva see —
Kon. i. § 10, 6e.
—
I. 16-20 27
functions are stated with perfect clearness in ^•'^^ (a) to give light :
upon the earth, {b) to rule day and night, and (c) to separate light from
darkness. I am disposed to think that ^^^ was introduced as an ex-
position of the idea of the vb. h^D, and that "»* was then added to
restore the connexion. Not much importance can be attached to the
insertions of dSc {v.i.), which may be borrowed from v."'\
20-23. Sixth work : Aquatic and aerial animals.

Let the waters swarm with swarming things — living creatures^
and let fowl fly, etc.] The conjunction of two
distinct forms
of life under one creative act has led Gu. to surmise that
two originally separate works have been combined in order
to bring the whole within the scheme of six days. Ben.

(rendering a?id fowl that may fly) thinks the author was
probably influenced by some ancient tradition that birds as
well as fishes were produced by the water (so Ra. and lEz.
on 2^^). The and the construction
conjecture is attractive,
has the support of all Gk. Vns. and Jf but it is not certain ;
that the verb can mean ^^ produce 3. swarm." More prob-

ably (in connexions like the present: see Ex. 7^^
[J]
[EV 8^], Ps. 105^^) the sense is simply teem with^ indicating
the or element in which the swarming creatures
place
abound, which case it cannot possibly govern P|iy as obj.
in
yyi^ has a sense something like 'vermin': i.e. it never
denotes a swarm,' but is always used of the creatures that

'
20. y^v . . . ijsnts"] On synt. see Dav. § 73, R. 2. The root has in Aram,
the sense of 'creep,' and there are many passages in where that OT
idea would be appropriate (Lv. 1 1^* ^^"''^ etc. ) ; hence Rob. Smith {RS^,
293), 'creeping vermin generally.' But here and Gn. 8" 9', Ex. i*^ 7-8,
Ps. 105^ it can only mean 'teem' or 'swarm'; and Dri. [Gen. 12) is
probably right in extending that meaning to all the pass, in Heb.
Gn. i^'-, Ex. 7^, Ps. los*** are the only places where the constr. with
cog. ace. appears elsewhere the animals themselves are subj. of the
;
vb. The words, except in three passages, are peculiar to the vocabulary
—
of P. But for the fact that pa' never means 'swarm,' but always
* swarming thing,' it would
be tempting to take it as st. constr. before
.Tn rs3 (ffi, Aq. TB). As it is, 'n '3 has all the awkwardness of a gloss
(see 2^*). The phrase is applied once to man, 2' (J) elsewhere ;
to animals,— mostly in P (Gn. i^^-^-^ 910.12.15.16^ Lv. iiô-ê etc.).—

»]Sij;» îyi] The order of words as in v.^^ (3T ^lym), due to emphasis on
the new subj. The use of descriptive impf. {(&, Aq. S0U) is mostly
poetic, and for reasons given above must here be refused. 'JS '?y] = 'in —
— —— a
28 CREATION (p)
appear in swarms (v.t.). —

used l^'H ^D3] lit. 'living soul';
here collectively, weakened,
and with the sense of K'DJ
as often, to individual or 'being- (ct. v.^*' and see on

'
*
'
2^). The creation of the aquatic animals marks, according

to OT ideas, the first appearance of life on the earth, for
life is nowhere predicated of the vegetable kingdom. over
the earth in front of the fimiament\ i.e. in the atmosphere,
•
for which Heb. has no special name. 21. created] indis- —
tinguishable from made in v. 2^. the great sea monsters] The
introduction of this new detail in the execution of the fiat
is remarkable. D3"'i3rin here denotes actual marine animals ;
but this almost the only passage vv^here it certainly bears

is
that sense (Ps. 148^). There are strong traces of mythology

in the usage of the word Is. 27^ 51^ (Gu. Schopf. 30-33), :
Ps. 74^^ (?) and it may have been originally the name of
;
a class of legendary monsters like Ti'amat. The mytho-

logical interpretation lingered in Jewish exegetical tradition
(see below). —22. And God blessed them, etc.] In contrast
with the plants, whose reproductive powers are included
in their creation (v.^^^-), these living beings are endowed
with the right of self-propagation by a separate act —
benediction (see v.^^). The distinction is natural. be
fruitful, etc.] "There is nothing to indicate that only a
front of ' : see BDB, 5, nas, II. 7, a,— (£ inserts }3 '.ti at the end of the
V, — 21. Drjnn] It is how far the
naturally difficult to determine exactly
Heb. usag-e of the word coloured by mythology. The important
is
point is that it represents a power hostile to God, not only in the pass,
cited above, but also in Job 7^^. There are resemblances in the Ar.
tinmn, a fabulous amphibious monster, appearing now on land and now
in the sea (personification of the waterspout? RS^, 176), concerning'
which the Arabian cosmographers have many wonderful tales to relate
(MasudI, i. 263, 266 ff. KazwinI, Eth^'s tr. i. 270 ff.).
; Ra., after
explaining literally, adds by way of Haggada that these are Leviathan *
and his consort,' who were created male and female, but the female
was killed and salted for the righteous in the coming- age, because if
they had multiplied the wôrld would not have stood before them
(comp. En. 60^-9, 4 Esd. 6'^-^-\ Ber. R. c. 7).*— 'nn trsr^s hni] Cf. 9^0,
* In Bab. tanntnu is said to be a mythological designation of the

earth (Jen. Kosm. 161 Jer. ATLO^, 136^ King, Cr. Tab. ioq^^); but that
;
;
throws no light on Heb.

—
I. 21-25 29
single pair of each kind was originally produced " (Ben.);

the language rather suggests that whole species, in some-
thing like their present multitude, were created.
24, 25. Seventh work : Terrestrial animals. —
24. Let the earth bring forth living creatures] riTl K^s: (again
coll.) is name for land animals, being re-
here a generic
stricted by what precedes living animals that spring — *
from the earth.' Like the plants (v.^^)^ ^-^gy ^re boldly said
to be produced by the earth, their bodies being part of the
earth's substance (2^- ^^) ; this could not be said of fishes in
relation to the water, and hence a different form of ex-
pression had to be employed in v.^^. The classification of —
animals (best arranged in v.^^) is threefold: (i) wild
animals, r"]?'7 ^.0 (roughly, carnivora) (2) domesticated ;
animals, HfDnn (herbivora) (3) reptiles, "^97^? ^^"'j including

;
perhaps creeping insects and very small quadrupeds (see

Dri. DB^ i. 518). A somewhat similar threefold division
appears in a Babylonian tablet — * cattle of the field, beasts
of the field and creatures of the city' (Jen. KIBy vi. i,
42 f. ; King, Cr. Tab. 112 f.). —25. God saw that it was
good]The formula distinctly marks the separation of this
work from the creation of man, which follows on the same
day. The absence of a benediction corresponding to
Lv. ii^° ;
'3 though without art. is really determined by 'â (but see Dri.
T. § 209 (i)). ^^^^\v nc'N] 'n, ace. of definition, as \-\v in v.^. 22. uni n^] —
highly characteristic of P (only 3 times elsewhere).
24. The distinctions noted above are not strictly observed throughout
the OT. (from a root signifying be dumb
r]Dn:j Ar. and Eth.) denotes
' '
—
collectively, ^r^/, animals as distinguished from man (Ex. 9^^ etc.), but
chiefly the larger mammals then, domestic animals (the dumb creatures
;
with which man has most to do), (Gn. 34^^36^ etc.). Of wild animals
specially it is seldom used alone (Dt. 32^*, Hab. 2^'), but sometimes with
an addition (px, ni'^, ly:) which marks the unusual reference. As a
noun of unity, Neh. 2^^. i4 gg^ BDB, s.v. pN in;n] an archaic phrase —
in which i represents the old case ending of the nom., u or um (G-K.
§ 90 n). So Ps. 79^; irrn in other combinations Is. 56^, Zeph. 2^*,
Ps. 104^^ Ps. 50^* 104^.
; In sense it is exactly the same as the
commoner psn n^n (iô-so ^2. 10 ej-^.), and usually denotes wz'/o^ animals,
though sometimes animals in general (^wov). t^DT and pB' naturally —
overlap but the first name is derived from the manner of movement,
;
and the second from the tendency to swarm (Dri. Lc).

:
^d CREATION (p)
yy22. 28 Js surprising, but it is idle to speculate on the

reason,
26-28. Eighth work : Creation of man. — As the
narrative approaches its climax, the style loses something
of its terse rigidity, and reveals a strain of poetic feeling
which suggests that the passage is moulded on an
ancient creation hymn (Gu.). The distinctive features of
this last work are: {a) instead of the simple jussive we

have the cohortative of either self-deliberation or consulta-
tion with other divine beings ;
(b) in contrast to the lower
animals, which are made each after its kind or type, man is
made in the image of God (c) man is designated as the ;
head of creation by being charged with the rule of the earth

and all the living creatures hitherto made. 26. Lei us —
make man] The difficulty of the ist pers. pi. has always
been felt.
Amongst the Jews an attempt was made to get rid of it by reading

ng'jy —
as ptcp. Niph. a view the absurd grammatical consequences of
which are trenchantly exposed by lEz. The older Christian comm.
generally find in the expression an allusion to the Trinity (so even
Calvin) ; but that doctrine is entirely unknown to the OT, and cannot
be implied here. In modern times it has sometimes been explained as
pi. of self-deliberation (Tu.), or after the analogy of the 'we' of royal
edicts bi>t Di. has shown that neither is consistent with native Heb.
;
idiom. Di. himself regards it as based on the idea of God expressed by

the pi. D'hSk, as the living personal synthesis of a fulness of powers
'
and forces (so Dri.) but that philosophic rendering of the concept of
' ;
deity appears to be foreign to the theology of the OT.
26. "iJmma ijc'jsd] fflr xar' eUdva rj/iirepav Kal Kad' ofioLwaiv. Mechilta
(see above, p. 14), gives as ffi's reading mcnai oSiia.— On the 3 'of a
model,' cf. Ex. 25*^; BDB, s.v. III. 8.— dVx] Ass. salmu, the technical
expression for the statue of a god {KAT^, 476^) Aram, and Syr. no^5>, ;
= image the root is not zalima, be dark, but possibly §alama, cut
* '
;
'
'
'
off' (Noldeke, ZATW, xvii. 185 f.). The idea of 'pattern' or 'model'
is confined to the P pass, cited above it stands intermediate between ;
the concrete sense just noted (an artificial material reproduction

I Sa. 6^ etc.) and another still more abstract, viz. 'an unreal sem-
—
blance' (Ps. 39' 73^°)« n^^l is the abstr. noun resemblance; but also
used concretely (2 Ch. 4^ like Syr. IZoiDJ); Ar. dumyat = 'effigy.'
The 1 is radical (form np^, cf. Ar. ) ; hence the ending m is no proof of
Aramaic influence (We. Prol.^ 388) see Dri. JPh. ;
xi. 216.— pN.T'?33i]
Ins. nrn with 5> {v.s.\ Other Vns. agree with MT.
—
1. 26 31
The most natural and most widely accepted explanation

is God is here represented as taking counsel with divine
that
beings other than Himself, viz. the angels or host of
heaven: cf. 3^2 ii7, Is. 68, i Ki. 2219-22 (so Philo, Ra. lEz.
De. Ho. Gu. Ben. al.). Di. objects to this interpretation,
firsty that it ascribes to angels some share in the creation of
man, which is contrary to scriptural doctrine; ^ and, second^
that the very existence of angels nowhere alluded to by is
P at all. There is force and in these considerations ;
probably the ultimate explanation has to be sought in a

pre-Israelite stage of the tradition (such as is represented
by the Babylonian account see below, p. 46), where a :
polytheistic view of man's origin found expression. This

would naturally be replaced in a Heb. recension by the idea
of a heavenly council of angels, as in i Ki. 22, Jb. i, 38^,
Dn. 4^* 7^^ etc. That P retained the idea in spite of his
silence as to the existence of angels is due to the fact that
it was decidedly less anthropomorphic than the statement
that man was made in the image of the one incomparable
Deity. in our image^ according to our likeness] The general
idea of likeness between God and man frequently occurs in
and sometimes the very term of this v.
classical literature,
(ctKwi/, ad imaginem) is employed. To speak of it, there-
fore, as " the distinctive feature of the Bible doctrine con-
cerning man " is an exaggeration ; although it is true that
such expressions on the plane of heathenism import much
less than in the religion of Israel (Di.). The idea in this
precise form is in the OT peculiar to P (5^- ^ 9^) ; the con-
ception, but not the expression, appears in Ps. 8^: later
biblical examples are Sir. 17^^-, WS. 2^^ (where the 'image'
is equivalent to immortality), i Co. 1 1^, Col. 3^^, Eph. 4^*,
Ja. 3^-
The origin of the conception is probably to be found in the Baby-

lonian mythology. Before proceeding to the creation of Ea-bani,
Aruru forms a mental image {zikrw. see Jen. KIB, vi. r, 401 f.) of
the God Anu {ib. 120, 1. 33) and similarly, in the Descent of
; Istar,
* Comp. Calvin: *' Minimam vero tarn praeclari operis partem

Angelis adscribere abominandum sacrilegium est."
32 CREATION (p)
Ea forms a zikru in his wise heart before creating AsQsunamir {ib. 86.
1. In both cases the reference is obviously to the bodily form of
11 ).
the created being. See, further, KAT^, 506; ATLO^, 167.
The patristic and other theological developments of the doctrine
lie beyond the scope of this commentary * and it is sufficient to observe;
—
with regard to them (i) that the 'image' is not something peculiar to
man's original state, and lost by the Fall because P, who alone uses ;
the expression, knows nothing of a Fall, and in 9^ employs the term,

without any restriction, of post-diluvian mankind. (2) The distinction
between eUibv {imago) and Oytiotwcrtj {similitudo) the former referring to —
the essence of human nature and the latter to its accidents or its en-
—
dowments by grace has an apparent justification in ffir, which inserts
Kal between the two phrases (see below), and never meniions the
*
likeness' after i^^; so that it was possible to regard the latter as
something belonging to the divine idea of man, but not actually con-
ferred at his creation. The Heb. affords no basis for such speculations :
cf. 5^'^ 9®.

— (3) The view that the divine image consists in dominion
over the creatures (Greg. Nyss., Chrysostom, Socinians, etc.) is still
defended by Ho. but it cannot be held without an almost inconceiv-
;
able weakening of the figure, and is inconsistent with the sequel, where
the rule over the creatures is, by a separate benediction, conferred
on man, already made in the image of God. The truth is that the
image marks the distinction between man and the animals, and so
qualifies him for dominion the latter is the consequence, not the
:
essence, of the divine image (cf. Ps. 8^^-, Sir. 17'-"^).

— (4) Does the
image refer primarily to the spiritual nature or to the bodily form
man? The idea of a corporeal resemblance
(upright attitude, etc.) of
seems from objection on the level of OT theology
free and it is ;
certainly strongly suggested by a comparison of 5^ with 5^. God is

expressly said to have a 'form' which can be seen (n:iD^, Nu. 12*,
Ps. 17^°) ; the OT writers constantly attribute to Him bodily parts ; and
that they ever advanced to the conception of God as formless spirit
would be difficult to prove. On the other hand, it may well be ques-
tioned if the idea of a spiritual image was within the compass of Heb.
thought. Di., while holding that the central idea is man's spiritual
nature, admits a reference to the bodily form in so far as it is the ex-
pression and organ of mind, and inseparable from spiritual qualities, f
It might be truer to say that denotes primarily the bodily form, but
it
includes those spiritual attributes of which the former is the natural
and self-evident symbol.:;: — Note the striking parallel in Ovid, Met. i.

76 if.
Man (0^^) is here generic (the human race), not the
* A good summary
given by Zapletal, Alttestamentliches, 1-15.
is
+ So Augustine, De
Gen. cont. Alan. i. 17: " Ita intelligitur per
animum maxime, attestante etiam erecta corporis forma, homo factus
ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei."
X Cf. Engert, Die Weltschiip/ungy 33.
— — —
I. 27-29 33
proper name of an individual, as 5^. Although the great

majority of comm. take it for granted that a single pair is
contemplated, there is nothing in the narrative to bear out
that view and the analogy of the marine and land animals
;
is against it on the whole (Tu. and Ben.). -fish of the sea^
etc.] The enumeration coincides with the classification of
animals already given, except that the earth occurs where

we should expect wild beast of the earth. n*n should
undoubtedly be restored to the text on the authority of ^.
27. in his image^ in the image of God^ etc.] The repetition
imparts a rhythmic movement to the language, which may
be a faint echo of an old hymn on the glory of man, like
Ps. 8 (Gu.). male and female] The persistent idea that
man as first created was bi-sexual and the sexes separated
afterwards (mentioned by Ra. as a piece of Haggada,
and recently revived by Schwally, ARW^ ix. 172 ff.), is
far from the thought of the passage. 28. A benedic- —
tion is here again the source of fertility, but this time also
of dominion : Gu. regards this as another fragment of a
hymn.
29-31. The record of creation closes with another (tenth)
27. loS^fa] ffi om. The curious paraphrase of S appears to reflect

the Ebionite tendency of that translator : iv cIkSpi 8ia<p6pu} 6pdLov 6 debs
iKTiaev avrdv (Geiger, Jtid. Ztschr. f. Wiss. u. Lebe7i, i. 40 f.). See,
however, Nestle, MM, 3f., who calls attention to the 6pdLov in (& of
1 Sa. 28^^ and considers this word the source of the idea that the uprig-ht
form of man is part of the divine image. But (& in i Sa. probably
—
misread Ipi as f]pt. ink] constructio ad formami nrk constr. ad sensum,
D^^• being collective see G-K. § 132^.
: —
nnpji nsi] The phrase confined to
P except Dt. 4^^ '3 alone in Jer. 31^^ (a gloss?). Although the applica-
;
tion to a single pair of individuals predominates in the Law, the coll.

sense is established by Gn. 7^**, and is to be assumed in some other cases
(Nu. 5' etc.). On its etymology see Ges. Th., s,v., and (for a different
view) Schwally, ZATW, xi. i8if. —
28. on"? noNî] (& \^yo3v perhaps ;
original, —
v'K'aai] The only instance of a verbal suff. in this chapter a :
strong preference for expression of ace. by nx with suff. is characteristic

of the style of P (We, Prol.^ 389). —
nB-Dnn] ptcp. with art. = relative cl. see :
Dav. § 99, R. I. The previous noun is defined by Sd, as in v.^^ (,01. inserts
the art.).— After O'Dtr ^ read (so Ball). ^
has for the end of the
r\D:^-:i-:x-\
V. : Kai TrdvTojv tQv kttjvlou /cat Taa-rjs Trjs yrjs Kal irdpTOJV [rcSv epTreruv] rwy
ip'tt-6vTWV iirl T'^s 7?5s.
29. "nna] = 'I give' ; Dav. §406; Dri. T. § 13. — yni (over Athnach)]
3
— —
34 CREATION (p)
divine utterance, which regulates in broad and general terms

the relation of men and animals to the vegetable world.
The plants are destined for food to man and beast. The
passage is not wholly intelligible apart from 9^^-, from
which we see that its point is the restriction on the use of
animal food, particularly on the part of man. In other
words, the first stage of the world's history — that state of
things which the Creator pronounced very good — is a state
of peace and harmony in the animal world. This is P's
substitute for the garden of Eden.
A distinction is made between the food of man and that
of animals : to the former {a) seeding plants (probably
because the seed is important in cultivation, and in cereals
is the part eaten), and {b) fruit-bearing trees ; to the latter
all the gree7i7iess of herbage^ i.e. the succulent leafy parts.
The statement is not exhaustive : no provision is made for
fishes, nor is there any mention of the use of such victuals
as milk, honey, etc. Observe the difference from chs. 2.
3, where man is made to live on fruit alone, and only as
part of the curse has herbs (3K^y) assigned to him. —31. The
account closes with the divine verdict of approval, which
wrongly omitted by C&. h^dn] found only in P and Ezk., and always
preceded by ^. It is strictly fern, inf., and perhaps always retains
verbal force (see Dri. //%. xi. 217). The ordinary cognate words for
—
food are Vrk and "âb*!?. 30. 'iai Vsî The construction is obscure. The
natural interpretation is that ^ expresses a contrast to ^ the one —
specifying the food of man^ the other that of animals. To bring out
this sense clearly it is necessary (with Ew. al.) to insert 'DDJ before
p^'-'?o-n^^ The text requires us to treat rh^xh ^ as a paren- n'.T voh in
thesis (Di.) and pn^^SmN as under the regimen of the distant 'nm.
still
s^pii] ®r epTrery t^j 'ipivovTi assimilating. — —

B'Sj] here used in its primary
sense of the soul or animating principle (see later on 2'^), with a marked
difference from vv.^^-^^ iv^ pn^] so 9^, = N^-n '' Ps. 37^. p-j; (verdure)
alone may include the foliage of trees (Ex. 10^^) ; r\-\^'^ = 'grass' (Nu.
'"•
22*). The word is rare (6t.) ; a still rarer form p"v may sometimes be
confounded with it (Is. 372^ = 2 Ki. 172^?).—31. 'is-ifn or] The art. with
the num. appears here for the first time in the chap. On the construc-
tion, see Dri. T. § 209 (i), where it is treated as the beginning of a usage
prevalent in post-biblical Heb., which often in a definite expression uses
the art. with the adj. alone (n^M^n nD33, etc.). Cf. G-K. § 126 w (with
footnote) ; Ho, Hex. 465 ; Dri. /Ph. xi, 229 f.
I- 30-11. 3 35
here covers a survey of all that has been made, and rises to
the superlative 'very good.'
Vy 29f.
differ significantly in their phraseology from the preceding
sections : thus Hi? instead of ynjD ("• ^2) ;ym yit y^j ns n ib^n yvr^ instead
of the far more elegant u lyni "Wtt
-fy
na
the classification into beasts,
n^'y ;
birds, and reptiles (ct. ^*- of the inner principle of life instead
^) ; n'n vs:
of the living being as in ô'' 24 â^v pT instead of Ntn.

. These linguistic
differences are sufficient to prove literary discontinuity of some kind.
They have been pointed out by Kra.etschma.r {Bundesvorsfg. 103 f.), who
adds the doubtful material argument that the prohibition of animal food
to man nullifies the dominion promised to him in vv.^^- 28^ But his infer-
ence (partly endorsed by Ho.) that the vv. are a later addition to P
does not commend itself they are vitally connected with g^^-, and must
;
have formed part of the theory of the Priestly writer. The facts point
rather to a distinction in the sources with which P worked,— perhaps
(as Gu. thinks) the enrichment of the creation-story by the independent
and widespread myth of the Golden Age when animals lived peaceably
with one another and with men. The motives of this belief lie deep
in the human heart —
horror of bloodshed, sympathy with the lower
animals, the longing for harmony in the world, and the conviction that
on the whole the course of things has been from good to worse all —
have contributed their share, and no scientific teaching can rob the idea
of its poetic and ethical value.
II. 1-3. The rest of God. The section contains but —

one idea, expressed with unusual solemnity and copiousness
of lang-uage, — the institution of the Sabbath. It supplies
an answer to the question, no work done on the Why is
last day of the week? (Gu.). The answer lies in the

fact that God Himself rested on that day from the work
of creation, and bestowed on it a special blessing and
sanctity. —
The writer's idea of the Sabbath and its sanctity
is almost too realistic for the modern mind to grasp it is :
not an institution which exists or ceases with its observance

by man the divine rest is a fact as much as the divine
;
working, and so the sanctity of the day is a fact whether

man secures the benefit or not. There is little trace of the
idea that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for
the Sabbath it is an ordinance of the kosmos like any
;
other part of the creative operations, and is for the good

of man in precisely the same sense as the whole creation is
subservient to his welfare.
—
36 THE SABBATH
I. And all their host\ The host of heaven (D^^^^n N3y)

' '
is frequently mentioned in the OT, and denotes sometimes

the heavenly bodies, especially as objects of worship
(Dt. 4^^ etc.), sometimes the angels considered as an
organised army (i Ki. 22^^ etc.). The expression 'host of
the earth ' nowhere occurs ; and it is a question whether
the pi. suff. here is not to be explained as a denominatio a
potiori (Ho.), or as a species of attraction (Dri.). If it has
any special meaning as applied to the earth, it would be
equivalent to what is elsewhere called pxn xpp (Is. 6^ 34^,
Dt. 33"'^^ etc.) — the conte?its of the earth, and is most

naturally limited to those things whose creation has just
been described.* In any case the verse yields little support
to the view of Smend and We., that in the name Yahwe '
of Hosts the word denotes the complex of cosmical forces

'
(Smend, AT Rel.-gesch. 201 ff.), or the demons in which

these forces were personified (We. Kl. Proph. 77). — 2. And
God finished^ etc.\ The duplication of v.^ is harsh, and
I. N3i:] Lit. 'host' or 'army'; then 'period of service' (chiefly

military). U ornatus look like a confusion with
<&. kSctimos and 'ny. Used
of the host of heaven, Dt, 4^" 17', Is. 24"^ 40^^, where U has in the first
case astruy in the others tnilitia\ in — ffir K6<Jixo% all. 2. '?3'iJ For the
alleged negative sense of Piel (see above), examine Nu. \'f^, or (with
p) I Sa. 10", Ex 34^^ etc. r\-::)>i!h'6\ the word "used regularly of the
work or business forbidden on the Sabbath (Ex. 20^* ^*' 35^, Jer. 17^^ '^
al.)"(Dri.); or on holy convocations (Ex. 12^^, Lv. 16-^23-^^-, Nu. 29').
It has the prevailing sense of regular occupation or business, as Gen.
39^1, Jon. i^
—
'yutyn^] nxf&i^ Juh., Ber. A". 'wvr\, given as fflr's read-
ing in Mechilta (cf p. 14 above). n3B"i] The omission of continued —
subj. (ovn"?}*) might strengthen We.'s contention that the clause is a
gloss (see p. 10 above): it occurs nowhere else in the passage except
possibly i'. The verb nDC (possibly connected with Ar. sabata = cvX *'
off,' or Ass. i«6a/'«=' cease,' 'be completed': but see KAT^, 593 f)
appears in OT in three quite distinct senses: (a) 'cease to be,' 'come

to an end (6) 'desist (from work, etc.) (r) keep Sabbath (denom.).
;
'
'
;
* '
Of the last there are four undoubted cases, all very late Lv. 25* 23^^ :
26^^*-, 2 Ch. 36^^. But there are five others where this meaning is at
least possible: Gn. 22-3, Ex. i63" 23^2 34^1 3117; and of these Ex. 23"
342-^ are pre-exilic. Apart from these doubtful passages, the sense
* Cf. Neh. 9^ "the heavens, the heavens of the heavens, and all
their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in
them."
— — —;
n. 1-3 57
strongly suggests a composition of sources. on the seventh

day] Aui^S read sixth day (so sXso Jtibilees^ ii. i6, and Jerome,
QucBst.), which is accepted as the original text by many
comm. (Ilg. Ols. Bu. al.).^ But sixth is so much the easier
reading that one must hesitate to give it the preference.
To take the vb. as plup. (Calv. al.) is grammatically impos-
sible. On We.'s explanation, see above, p. gf. The only
remaining course is to give a purely negative sense to the
\h. Jinish: i.e. 'desisted from,' 'did not continue' (lEz,
De. Di. Dri. al.). The last view may be accepted, in spite
of the absence of convincing parallels. and he rested] The
idea of HD^ is essentially negative : cessation of work, not
relaxation (Dri.): see below. Even so, the expression is
strongly anthropomorphic, and warns us against exaggerat-

ing P's aversion to such representations.! — 3. blessed . . .
*
desist ' {b) is found only in Ho. 7*, Jb. 32^ (Qal) Ex. 5*, Jos. 22^*,
;
Ezk. 16^^ 34^° (Hiph.) ; of which Ho. 7* (a corrupt context) and Ex. 5",
alone are possibly pre-exilic. In all other occurrences (about 46 in all
9 Qal, 4 Niph., 33 Hiph.) the sense {a) come to an end obtains and
' '
;
this usage prevails in all stages of the literature from Am. to Dn. the ;
pre-exilic examples being Gn. 8^2, Jos. 5^^ (?) (Qal); Is. 17^ (Niph.);
Am. 8S Ho. I* 213, Is. 16^0 (?) 3011, Dt. '3226, 2 Ki. 2^-'^^, Jer. 7^4 i69
36-^ (Hiph.). These statistics seem decisive against Hehn's view (I.e.
93 ff.) that r\yip is originally a denom. from n3B'. If all the uses are to
be traced to a single root-idea, there can be no doubt that {b) is primary.
But while a dependence of {a) on {b) is intelligible (cf. the analogous
case of "rin), desist from work, and come to an end are after all very
*
'
' '
different ideas and, looking to the immense preponderance of the latter

;
sense (a), especially in the early literature, it is worth considering

whether the old Heb. vb. did not mean simply 'come to an end,' and
whether the sense desist was not imported into it under the influence
'
'
of the denominative use {c) of which Ex. 23^^ 34^^ might be early
examples. [A somewhat similar view is now expressed by Meinhold
{ZATW, 1909, 100 f.), except that he ignores the distinction between
'desist' and 'come to an end,' which seems to me important.] 3. Nnn —
r\Mff])h . .] The awkward construction is perhaps adopted because Nn3
.
could not directly govern the subst. n3N'?D. has ijpâro iroiija-ai. © . . .
* Expressly mentioned as ffi's reading in Mechilta : see above, p. 14,

and Geiger, I.e. 439.
t In another passage of P, Ex. 31", the anthropomorphism is greatly
intensified "God rested and refreshed Himself" (lit. 'took breath').
:
See Jast. {AJTh. ii. 343 ff.), who thinks that God's 'resting' meant
originally "His purification after His conquest of the forces hostile to
—
38 THE SABBATH
sanctified] The day is blessed and sacred in itself and from

the beginning ; to say that the remark is made in view of the
future institution of the Sabbath (Dri.), does not quite bring
out the sense. Both verbs contain the idea of selection and
distinction 36 [33] ^"^), but they are not synonymous
(cf. Sir.
(Gu.). A blessing is the effective utterance of a good wish ;
applied to things, it means their endowment with per-

manently beneficial qualities (Gn. 27^^, Ex. 23^^, Dt. 28^).
This is the case here : the Sabbath is a constant source of
well-being to the man who recognises its true nature and
purpose. To sanctify is to set apart from common things
to holy uses, or to put in a special relation to God. which
God creatively made] see the footnote. —Although no closing
formula for the seventh day is given, it is contrary to the
intention of the passage to think that the rest of God
means His work of providence as distinct from creation it :
is plainly a rest of one day that is thought of. It is, of

course, a still greater absurdity to suppose an interval of
twenty-four hours between the two modes of divine activity.
The author did not think in our dogmatic categories at all.
The origin of the Hebrew Sabbath, and its relation to Babylonian

usages, raise questions too intricate to be fully discussed here (see Lotz,
Qucest. de hist. Sabbati [1883] Jastrow, AJTh. ii. [1898], 312 ff.
;
KAT^, ;
592 ff.; Dri. DB, s.v., and Gen. 34; Sta. BTh. § 88, 2). The main
facts, however, are these (i) The name $ab[p\attu occurs some five or
:
six times in cuneiform records but of these only two are of material
;
importance for the Sabbath problem, (a) In a syllabary (H R. 32, 16 a, b)

Sabattu is equated with ^m nii^ libbi, which has been conclusively shown
to mean 'day of the appeasement of the heart (of the deity),' in the —
first instance, therefore,a day of propitiation or atonement (Jen. ZA,
iv. 274 ff. Jast. I.e. 316 f.).
;
{b) In a tablet discovered by Pinches in
1904, the name sapattu is applied to the fifteenth day of the month (as
full-moon-day?) (Pin. PSBA, xxvi. 51 ff. Zimmern, ZDMG, Iviii. 199 ff.,
;
458 fF.). (2) The only trace of a Babylonian institution at all resembling
the Heb. Sabbath is the fact that in certain months of the year (Elul,
MarcheSvan, but possibly the rest as well) the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th
days, and also the 19th (probably as the 7 x 7th from the beginning of
the previous month), had the character of dies nefasti ('lucky day, un-
the order of the world," and was a survival of the mythological idea of
the appeasement of Marduk's anger against Ti'amat. The vb. there
used is ndl}ti, the equivalent of Heb. nu, used in Ex. 20^*.
;;
II. 3, 4A 39
lucky day '), on which certain actions had to be avoided by important
personages (king, priest, physician) (IV R. 32 f., 33). Now, no evidence
has ever been produced that these dies nefasti bore the name iahattu ;
and the likelihood that this was the case is distinctly lessened by the
Pinches fragment, where the name is applied to the 15th day, but not
to the 7th, although it also is mentioned on the tablet. The question,
therefore, has assumed a new aspect and Meinhold {Sabbath u. Woche
;
im /4 and more recently [1909], ZATW, xxix. 8i ff.), developing

r [1905],
a hint of Zim., has constructed an ingenious hypothesis on the assump-
tion that in Bab. iabattu denotes the day of the full moon. He points
to the close association of new-moon and Sabbath in nearly all the pre-
exilic references (Am. 8^ Hos. 2^^, Is. i^^, 2 Ki. 4^^^-) and concludes
;
that in early Israel, as in Bab., the Sabbath was the full-moon festival
and nothing else. The institution of the weekly Sabbath he traces to a
desire to compensate for the loss of the old lunar festivals, when these
were abrogated by the Deuteronomic reformation. This innovation he
attributes to Ezekiel but steps towards it are found in the introduction
;
of a weekly day of rest during harvest only (on the ground of Dt. i6^
cf. Ex. 34^^), and in the establishment of the sabbatical year (Lv. 25),
which he considers to be older than the weekly Sabbath. The theory

involves great improbabilities, and its net result seems to be to leave the
actual Jewish Sabbath as we know it without any point of contact in
Bab. institutions. It is hard to suppose that there is no historical con-
nexion between the Heb. Sabbath and the dies nefasti of the Bab.
calendar and if such a connexion exists, the chief difficulties remain
;
where they have long been felt to lie, viz., (a) in the substitution of
a weekly cycle running continuously through the calendar for a division
of each month into seven-day periods, probably regulated by the phases
of the moon ; and (6) in the transformation of a day of superstitious re-
strictions into a day of joy and rest. Of these changes, it must be
confessed, no convincing explanation has yet been found. The estab-
lished sanctity of the number seven, and the decay or suppression of the
lunar feasts, might be contributory causes ; but when the change took
place, and whether it was directly due to Babylonian influence, or was
a parallel development from a lunar observance more primitive than
either, cannot at present be determined. See Hehn, Siehenzahl u.
Sabbat, 91 ff., esp. 114 ff. cf. Gordon, ETGy 216 ff.
;
4a. These are the generations^ etc.] The best sense that
can be given to the expression is to refer the pronoun to
4a. nn'?in] only in pi. const, or with suff. ; and confined to P, Ch.
and Ru. 4^^ Formed from Hiph. of n"?', it means properly begettings *
'
not, however, as noun of action, but concretely ( = progeny') and this

'
;
is certainly the prevalent sense. The phrase 'n '« (only P [all in Gn.
except Nu. 3'], i Ch. i^^, Ru. 4^^) means primarily "These are the
descendants " but since a list of descendants is a genealogy, it is
;
practically the same thing if we render, "This is the genealogical

register." In the great majority of instances (Gn. [5^] lo^ ii^^ 11^ 25^"
40 THE SABBATH
what precedes, and render the noun by origin This is * ' :

*
the origin
of,' etc. But it is doubtful if nnîn can bear any
such meaning, and altogether the half-verse is in the last
degree perplexing. It is in all probability a redactional
insertion.
The formula (and indeed the whole phraseology)

is characteristic of
P ; and in that document

invariably stands as introduction to the
it
section following. But in this case the next section (2*^-4^^) belongs
to J ; and if we pass over the J passages to the next portion of P (ch. 5),
the formula would collide with 5^, which is evidently the proper heading
to what follows. Unless, therefore, we adopt the improbable hypothesis
of Strack, that a part of P's narrative has been dropped, the attempt to
treat 2^ in its present position as a superscription must be abandoned.
On this ground most critics have embraced a view propounded by Ilgen,
that the clause stood originally before i^, as the heading of P's account
36^-^ I Ch. i^y Ru. 4-'^) this sense is entirely suitable ; the addition of
a few a genealogy,
historical notices is not inconsistent with the idea of
nor is by it. There are
the general character of these sections affected
just three cases where this meaning is inapplicable Gn. 6^ 25^^ 37^ :
But it is noteworthy that, except in the last case, at least a fragment of

a genealogy follows and it is fair to inquire whether 37^ may not have
;
been originally followed by a genealogy (such as S5^^'^^ or 46^"^' [see

Hupfeld, Quellen, 102-109, 213-216]) which was afterwards displaced
in the course of redaction (see p. 423, below). With that assumption we
could explain every occurrence of the formula without having ref:ourse to
the unnatural view that the word may mean a "family history" (G-B.
5.7/.), or " an account of a man and his descendants
" (BDB). The natural
hypothesis would then be that a series of m-i'?in formed one of the sources
employed by P in compiling his work the introduction of this genea- :
logical document is preserved in 5^ (so Ho.); the recurrent formula

represents successive sections of it, and 2^ is a redactional imitation.
When it came to be amalgamated with the narrative material, some
dislocations took place hence the curious anomaly that a man's history
:
sometimes appears under his own TolMoth, sometimes under those of

his father and it is difficult otherwise to account for the omission
;
of the formula before 12^ or for its insertion in 36^ On the whole, this
theory seems to explain the facts better than the ordinary view that
the formula was devised by P to mark the divisions of the principal
work. — DNna'"'3] 'in their creation' or '
when they were created.' If the
lit mintisc. has critical significance (Tu. Di.) the primary reading was
inf. Qal (DNin?) ; and this requires to be supplemented by D\n'7N as subj.
form that Di. thinks the clause originally stood at the begin-
It is in this
ning of Gen. (see on 1^). But the omission of D'n'?x and the insertion
of the ^ minusc. are no necessary consequences of the transposition of
the sentence and the small ^ may be merely an error in the archetypal
;
MS, which has been mechanically repeated in all copies.

'
II. 4A 41
of the creation.* But this theory also is open to serious objection. It

involves a meaning of nnVin which is contrary both to its etymology and
the usage of P (see footnote). Whatever latitude of meaning be as-
signed to the word, it is the fact that in this formula it is always followed
by gen. of the progenitor, never of the progeny hence by analogy the :
phrase must describe that which is generated by the heavens and the
earth, not the process by which they themselves are generated (so
Lagarde, Or. ii. 38 ff., and Ho.). And even if that difficulty could be
overcome (see Lagarde), generation is a most unsuitable description of
the process of creation as conceived by P. In short, neither as super-
scription nor as subscription can the sentence be accounted for as an
integral part of the Priestly Code. There seems no way out of the
difficulty but to assume with Ho. that the formula in this place owes
its origin to a mechanical imitation of the manner of P by a later
hand. The insertion would be suggested by the observation that the
formula divides the book of Gen. into definite sections while the advan- ;
tage of beginning a new section at this point would naturally occur to

an editor who felt the need of sharply separating the two accounts of
the creation, and regarded the second as in some way the continuation
of the first. If that be so, he probably took 'n in the sense of history '
and referred n^N to what follows. The analogy of 5^, Nu. 3^ would
suffice to justify the use of the formula before the orn of ^^. It has —
been thought that (& has preserved the original form of the text viz. :
'1JI 'n n£3D ni (cf. 5^) the redactor having, *' before inserting a section from
;
the other document, accidentally copied in the opening words of 5^,

which were afterwards adapted to their present position " (Ben.). That
is improbable. It is more likely that (& deliberately altered the text to
correspond with 5^ See Field, Hex., ad loc. Nestle, MM^ 4. ;
Babylonian and other Cosmogonies,
I. The cosmogony have long been known from two

outlines of Bab.
Greek writers (i) an extract from Berossus (3rd cent.
brief notices in :
B.C.) made by Alexander Polyhistor, and preserved by Syncellus from

the lost Chronicle of Eusebius (lib. i.); and (2) a passage from the
Neo-Platonic writer Damascius (6th cent. A.D.). From these it was
apparent that the biblical account of creation is in its main conceptions
Babylonian. The interest of the fragments has been partly enhanced,
but partly superseded, since the discovery of the closely parallel Chal- *
daean Genesis,' unearthed from the debris of Asshurbanipal's library at

Nineveh by George Smith in 1873. It is therefore unnecessary to
examine them in detail but since the originals are not very accessible
;
to English readers, they are here reprinted in full (with emendations

after A'^rs, 488 ffi):
(i) Berossus Teviadai ^rjal XP^^°^ ^^ V t^ ""Sj' aKdros Kal vSup ehai,
:
Kal iv TOVTois ^Qa reparibSr], Kal i8io<pveLS [em. Richt., cod. eldicpve^s] ras
I8ias ^xo^Ttt iôooyoveicrdat' dvdpu-jrovs yap Siirr^povs yevvri6r}fai, iviovs 8k
* On Dillmann's modification of this theory, see above on i^

42 BABYLONIAN
Kal TeTpawT^povs Kai Bnrpocruirovs' Kal awfia fikv ^xoJ'T-as iv, KecpaXas Si 8vo,
dvdpeiav re Kai yvfaiKcLav, Kal aldola 5i [corn v. Gutschm., cod. re] 5to-«rd,
A^pev Kal dijXv' Kal irepovs avdpi^wovs tovs /xeu alyCJv crKeXij Kal K^para ^x^""
ras, roi)s Se 'iinrov irbdas [corr. v. Gutschm., cod. tTTTroTroSas], roiVs 5^ to.
oirlau) ixkv [xip-q tTTTrajv, ra dk ^fxirpoadep avdpthinav, o9s [ws? v. Gutschm.]
liriroKevTavpovs ttjv idâv eTvai. TtUioyovrjdTjvai dk Kal raijpovs dvdpibTrcov
K€(pa\ds ^xoiras Kal Kijvas Terpaffwixdrov^, ovpds ix^vos iK tCjv diriadev fiepQi'
^Xovras, Kal iTnrovs KvuoK6(pd\ovs Kal dudpuirovs, Kal ^repa ^Qa K€(pa\ds fikv
Kal adj/xara 'Ittttwu ^x^^'^'î ovpds 5i IxduuV Kal dWa di ^Qa iravToSaTrQu
d-qptwv fiop(f)ds ^xof'T^tt- TLpbt dk tovtois Ixdâs Kal epirerd Kal 84>€l$ Kal dWa
fwa Trkeiova dav/xaaTd Kal rraprfKXay/xipas [em. v. Gutschm., cod. irapriXXay-
fiiva'] rds 6\}/eis aXX-qXiov ^x^^'''^ ' '^^ '^^t' "^^^ eUdvas iv ry rod 'QrjXov vai^
dvaK€i<rdat, dpX'^'-v Sk tovtojv irdvTiav yvvaXKa rj 6voixa '0/xopKa [corr. Scaliger,

cod. 'O/topwKa] ehat' tovto de XaXSal'o-rt fiiv Qa/xre [corr. W. R. Smith,
Â, vi. 339, cod. GaXar^], 'EW-qviarl di fieOep/xrjveveTai OdXaaaa Kard di
i(r6\f/ri<pov aeXrivr]. Oi/tws 5^ rdv 6Xu3v auveaTTjKdToou, iiraveXdbvra ^-qXov
axicat TT]v yvvalKa fiârjp, Kal rb jxkv rj/xiav avTTJs iroLTJaai yijv, rb Si dXXo
ijfiKTv ovpavbv, Kal ra iv [avv? v. Gutschm.] avry fwa dtpapiaai, dXXrjyopiKivs
84 (prjai TOVTO ir€<pvaioXoy7](r6ai ' vypoO ydp 6vtos tov Travrbs Kal îhwv iv avT(^
yeyewTfixevoiv [A]* rotwi'Se [em. v. Gutschm., cod. Tbv 5i\ "QriXov, 6v Ala
fie6epfj,T]vevov(n, [xiaov Te/xdvTa rb <xk6tos x^P^^^'- fW '^'^^ oipavbv dir' dXX^Xwv,
Kal diardâi rbv Koafiov. Td 5i ftDa ovk iveyKovTa tt]v tov (purrbs Svvafjuv (pOap-
rival, idbvTa di rbv BrjXov x^P^^ ^prjfiov Kal dKapirocpopov [em. Gunkel, cod.
Kap-rrocpSpov'] KeXevaai evl tQv deQv ttjv KecpaXrjv d<peX6vTL eavroO ry diro^pvivrt
aifiaTi (pvpdaai rrjv yijv Kal diaxXdaai dvOpuirovs Kal drjpia rd Svvdfieva rbv
depa (pipeiv. 'AiroTeXiaai 5i rbv Bt]\ov Kal darpa Kal tJjXiov Kal aeXrjvriv Kal
roi'S irivTe TrXavqTa^. TaDrd (prjatv 6 TroXvtcrTCjp 'AXiâvSpos rbv Brjpuiacrbv iv
Trj Trpurrrj (pd(TK€iv [B] * tovtov rbv 6ebv d<peXe1v rr]v iavTOV KecpaX-qv Kal t6
pviv at/xa Tovs dXXovs deovs (pvpdaai ry yfi, Kal diairXdaai rods dvdpibwovi'
5t6 voepovs re elvai Kal (ppovrjaeus deias ixerix^'-v-
(2) Damascius : Twv 5e âp^dpuiv iolKatxi Ba^vXibvioi fikv rrjv fiiav tu>v
SXcov dpxw (^'yv TÔ'Pi-ivai, 8vo Si iroielv Tavde Kal 'ATraauiv, Tbv fikv 'Airaaoiv
dvSpa TTJs Tavde iroiovvTes, TavTrjv 5k /xrjTepa deuv 6vo/j,dôvT€$, i^ S}v fiovoyevrj
iraTda yevvTjd^vai Tbv Miavfjiiv, k6(T/j.ov iK tQv dvoTv

avTov olfiaL Tbv vorjTbv
dpx^v Trapaybfievov. tuv avruiv &XXr]v 7evedi' irpoeXde^v, Aax'?'' [cod.
'E/c 5^
Aax'Jjf] Kal Aaxov [cod. Aaxof]. Elra ad TplTrjv iK tQv avTQsv, Kiacapr] Kal
'Acrawpov, i^ &v yeviaOai Tpets, 'Avov Kal 'IXXivov Kal 'Aov tov 8i 'Aov Kal
AavKTis vibv yeviaOai rbv Bt^Xo;', 6v drjixiovpybv elvai (pacrtv.j"
* The sections commencing with [A] and [B] stand in the reverse
order in the text. The transposition is due to von Gutschmid, and
seems quite necessary to bring out any connected meaning, though
there may remain a suspicion that the two accounts of the creation of
man are variants, and that the second is interpolated. Je. ATLO"^, 134,
plausibly assigns the section from aXX-qyopiKtSs to (pdaprjvat to another
recension (restoring [B] to its place in the text).
t The Greek text of Berossus will be found in Miiller, Fragm. Hist.
GrcBC. ii. 497 f. that of Damascius in Damascii philos. de prim, princ.
;
(ed. Kopp, 1826), cap. 125. For translations of both fragments, see
—
COSMOGONIES 43
2, The only cuneiform document which admits of close and con-
tinuous comparison with Gn. i is the great Creation Epos just referred
to. Since the publication, in 1876, of the first fragments, many lacunas
have been filled up from subsequent discoveries, and several duplicates
have been brought to light and the series is seen to have consisted of
;
seven Tablets, entitled, from the opening phrase, Enuma elis (=* When
above').* The actual tablets discovered are not of earlier date than
the 7th cent. B.C., but there are strong reasons to believe that the
originals of which these are copies are of much greater antiquity, and
may go back to 2000 B.C., while the myth itself probably existed in
writing in other forms centuries before that. Moreover, they represent
the theory of creation on which the statements of Berossus and
Damascius are based, and they have every claim to be regarded as the
authorised version of the Babylonian cosmogony. It is here, therefore,
if anywhere, that we must look for traces of Babylonian influences on
the Hebrew conception of the origin of the world. The following out-
line of the contents of the tablets is based on King's analysis of the
epic into five originally distinct parts (CT", p. Ixvii).
1. —
The Theogony. The first twenty-one lines of Tab. I. contain a
description of the primaeval chaos and the evolution of successive
generations of deities :
When height heaven was not named,

in the
And the earth beneath did not bear a name,
And the primaeval Apsu,^ who begat them,
And chaos, Ti'amat,^ the mother of them both,
Their waters were mingled together,
Then were created the gods in the midst of (heaven), etc.
First Lahmu and Lahamu,^then Ansar and Kisar,^ and lastly (as we
learn from Damascius, whose report is in accord with this part of the
tablet, and may safely be used to make up a slight defect) the supreme
triad of the Bab. pantheon, Anu, Bel, and Ea.^
^ Damascius, 'ATracrwi'. ^ Dam. Tauê, Ber. Oayttre (em., see above).
^ Dam. AaxTj and Aaôs (em.). ^ 'A(r(rc«j/)os and Kiacraprj. ^ 'Avos,
'IWivos (In-lil = Bel), and 'Aos.
KAT^, 488 ff. ; G. Smith, Chaldean Genesis (ed. Sa5'ce), pp. 34 fF., 43 f.
(from Cory, Ancient Fragments) Gu. Schopf. 17 ff.
; Nikel, Gen. u.
;
Keilschr. 24 f. , 28.
* The best collection and translation of the relevant texts in English
is given in L. W. King's Seven Tablets of Creation, vol. 1. (1902) with ;
which should be compared Jen. Mythen und Epen, in KIB, vi. i (1900),
and now (1909) Gressmann, AUorient. Texte und Bilder z. AT., i. 4fF.
See also Jen. Kosmologie {i8go), 268-301 Gu. Schopf. (1894)401-420, and
;
the summaries in KAT^, 492 ff. Lukas, Grundhegrijfe in d. Kosm. d.

;
alt. Volker (1893), 2 ff Jast. Rel. of Bab. and Ass. (1898) 410 ff.
.
; Jer. ;
ATLO^, 132 ff. ; EB, art. Creation.

; ;
44 BABYLONIAN
ii. —
The Subjugation of Apsu by Ea. The powers of chaos, Apsu,
Tiamat, and a third being- called Mummu (Dam. Mwv/iis), take counsel
tog-ether to 'destroy the way' of the heavenly deities. An illegible
portion of Tab. I. must have told how Apsu and Mummu were vanquished
by Ea, leaving Tiamat still unsubdued. In the latter part of the tablet
the female monster is again incited to rebellion by a god called Kingu,
whom she chooses as her consort, laying on his breast the Tables of '
Destiny which the heavenly gods seek to recover. She draws to her
'
side many of the old gods, and brings forth eleven kinds of monstrous
beings to aid her in the fight.
iii. The conflict between Marduk and Tiamat. Tabs. II. and III. are —
occupied with the consultations of the gods in view of this new peril,
resulting in the choice of Marduk as their champion and Tab. IV. ;
gives a graphic description of the conflict that ensues. On the approach

of the sun-god, mounted on his chariot and formidably armed, attended
by a host of winds, Tiamat's helpers flee in terror, and she alone con-
fronts the angry deity. Marduk entangles her in his net, sends a
hurricane into her distended jaws, and finally despatches her by an
arrow shot into her body.
iv. The account of creation commences near the end of Tab. IV.
After subduing the helpers of Tiamat and taking the Tables of Destiny
from Kingu, Marduk surveys the carcase, and devised a cunning '
plan ' :
He split her up like a flat fish into two halves ;
One half of her he stablished as a covering for the heaven.

He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman.
And bade them not to let her waters come forth.
He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions (thereof),
And over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.^
And the lord measured the structure of the Deep
And he founded E-§ara, a mansion like unto it.
The mansion E-§ara which he created as heaven,
He caused Anu, Bel, and Ea in their districts to inhabit.
Berossus says, what is no doubt implied here, that of the other half of
Tiamat he made the earth but whether ; this is meant b}' the founding
of E-sara, or is to be looked for in a lost part of Tab. V., is a point in
dispute (see Jen. Kosm. 185 ff., 195 ff". and KIB, vi. i, 344 f.). Tab.
;
V. opens with the creation of the heavenly bodies :
He made the stations for the great gods ;
The stars, their images, as the stars of the Zodiac, he fixed.

He ordained the year and into sections he divided it
For the twelve months he fixed three stars.
The Moon-god he caused to shine forth, the night he entrusted to

him.
He appointed him, a being of the night, to determine the days
:
COSMOGONIES 45
Every month without ceasing with the crown he covered (?) him,
(saying,)
"At the beginning of the month, when thou shinest upon the land,
Thou commandest the horns to determine six days,
And on the seventh day," etc. etc.
The rest of Tab. V., where legible, contains nothing bearing on the
present subject ; but in Tab. VI, we come to the creation of man, which
is recorded in a form corresponding to the account of Berossus :
When Marduk heard the word of the gods.

His heart prompted him, and he devised (a cunning plan).
He opened his mouth and unto Ea (he spake),
(That which) he had conceived in his heart he imparted (unto
him)
**
My blood will I take and bone will I (fashion),
I will make man, that man may ...(...)
I will create man, who shall inhabit (the earth),

That the service of the gods may be established," etc. etc.
At the end of the tablet the gods assemble to sing the praises of
Marduk and the last tablet is filled with a
;
v. Hymn in honour of Marduk. —

From this we learn that to Marduk
was ascribed the creation of vegetation and of the 'firm earth,' as well
as those works which are described in the legible portions of Tabs.
IV.-VI.
How far, now, does this conception of creation correspond with the
cosmogony of Gn. i ? (i) In both we find the general notion of a watery
chaos, and an etymological equivalence in the names {Ti'dmat, T^hdm)
By" which it is called. It is true that the Bab. chaos is the subject of a
double personification, Apsu representing the male, and Tiamat the
female principle by whose union the gods are generated. Accord-
ing to Jen. {KIB^ 559 f)> Apsu is the fresh, life-giving water which
descends from heaven in the rain, while Tiamat is the 'stinking,'
salt water of the ocean in the beginning these were mingled (Tab.
:
I. 5), and by the mixture the gods were produced. But in the sub-
sequent narrative the role of Apsu is insignificant and in the central
;
episode, the conflict with Marduk, Tiamat alone represents the power
of chaos, as in Heb. Tehdm. —
(2) In Enuma elis the description of
chaos is followed by a theogony, of which there is no trace in Gen.
The Bab. theory is essentially monistic, the gods being conceived as
emanating from a material chaos. Lukas, indeed {I.e. 14 ff., 24 fF.),
has tried to show that they are represented as proceeding from a
supreme spiritual principle, Anu. But while an independent origin of
deity may be consistent with the opening lines of Tab. I., it is in direct
opposition to the statement of Damascius, and is irreconcilable with
the later parts of the series, where the gods are repeatedly spoken
of as children of Apsu and Tiamat. The biblical conception, on the
contrary, is probably dualistic (above, pp. 7, 15), and at all events
the supremacy of the spiritual principle {Elohim) is absolute. That a
46 BABYLONIAN
theogony must have originally stood between vv.^ and ' of Gn. i (Gu.)
is more than can be safely affirmed. Gu. thinks it is the necessary
sequel to the idea of the world-egg in the end of v.*. But he himself
regards that idea as foreign to the main narrative and if in the
;
original source something must have come out of the egg, it is more
likely to have been the world itself (as in the Phoenician and Indian
cosmogonies) than a series of divine emanations. — (3) Both accounts
assume, but in very different ways, the existence of light before the
creation of the heavenl)' bodies. In the Bab. legend the assumption
is disguised by the imagery of the myth the fact that Marduk, the
:
god of light, is himself the demiurge, explains the omission of light

from the category of created things. In the biblical account that
motive no longer operates, and accordingly light takes its place as the
first creation of the Almighty. —
(4) A very important parallel is the
conception of heaven as formed by a separation of the waters of
the primaeval chaos. In Enuma elis the septum is formed from the
body of Tiamat in Gen. it is simply a rdkfa a solid structure
; —
fashioned lor the purpose. But the common idea is one that could
hardly have been suggested except by the climatic conditions under
which the Bab. myth is thought to have originated. Jen. has shown,
to the satisfaction of a great many writers, how the imagery of the
Bab. myth can be explained from the changes that pass over the face
of nature in the lower Euphrates valley about the time of the vernal
equinox (see Kosin. 307 ff. cf. Gu. Schdpf. 24 ff. Gordon). Chaos is
; ;
an idealisation of the Babylonian winter, when the heavy rains and

the overflow of the rivers have made the vast plain like a sea, when
thick mists obscure the light, and the distinction between heaven and
sea seems to be effaced. Marduk represents the spring sun, whose
rays pierce the darkness and divide the waters, sending them partly
upwards as clouds, and partly downwards to the sea, so that the dry
land appears. The 'hurricane,' which plays so important a part in
the destruction of the chaos-monster, is the spring winds that roll
away the dense masses of vapour from the surface of the earth. If
this be the natural basis of the myth of Marduk and Tiamat, it is
evident that it must have originated in a marshy alluvial region, subject
to annual inundations, like the Euphrates valley. —
(5) There is, again,
a close correspondence between the accounts of the creation of the
heavenly bodies (see p. 21 f.). The Babylonian is much fuller, and more
saturated with mythology it mentions not only the moon but the signs
:
of the Zodiac, the planet Jupiter, and the stars. But in the idea that
the function of the luminaries is to regulate time, and in the destination
of the moon to rule the night, we must recognise a striking resemblance
between the two cosmogonies. — (6) The last definite point of contact
is the creation of man (p. 30 f.). Here, however, the resemblance is
slight, though the deliberative ist pers. pi. in Gn. i^ is probably a
reminiscence of a dialogue like that between Marduk and Ea in the
Enuma elis narrative. —
(7) With regard to the order of the works, it
is evident that there cannot have been complete parallelism between
the two accounts. In the tablets the creation of heaven is followed
: ;
COSMOGONIES 47
naturally by that of the stars. The arrangement of the remaining
works, which must have been mentioned in lost parts of Tabs. V. and
VI., is, of course, uncertain; but the statement of Berossus suggests
that the creation of land animals followed instead of preceding that of
man. At the same time it is very significant that the separate works
themselves, apart from their order Firmame nt, Luminaries, Earth,
:
Plants, Animals, Men, —

are practically identical in the two documents :
therels even a fragment (possibly belonging to the series) which alludes

to the creation of marine animals as a distinct class (King, CT, lix,
Ixxxvi). Gordon {Early Traditions of Gen.) holds that the differences
of arrangement can be reduced to the single transposition of heavenly
bodies and plants (see his table, p. 51).
In view of these parallels, it seems impossible to doubt that the
cosmogony of Gn. i rests on a concepTioTT oFOie pFocess of creation
fundamentally identical with that of the Enuma eliS tablets.
3. There is, however, another recension of the Babylonian creation
story from which the fight of the sun-god with chaos is absent, and
which for that reason possesses a certain importance for our present
purpose. It occurs as the Introduction to a bilingual magical text, first
published by Pinches In 1891.* Once upon a time, it tells us, there were
no temples for the gods, no plants, no houses or cities, no human
inhabitants
The Deep had not been created, Eridu had not been built ;
Of the holy house, the house of the gods, the habitation had not been
made.
All lands were sea {tdmtu).
Then arose a * movement In the sea '; the most ancient shrines and
cities of Babylonia were made, and divine beings created to inhabit
them. Then
Marduk a reed t on the face of the waters
laid
He formed dust and poured It out beside the reed,
That he might cause the gods to dwell In the habitation of their
heart's desire.
He formed mankind the goddess Aruru together with him created
;
the seed of mankind.
Next he formed beasts, the rivers, grasses, various kinds of animals, etc.;
then, having laid in a dam by the side of the sea, he made reeds and
* '
trees, houses and cities, and the great Babylonian sanctuaries. The
whole description Is extremely obscure, and the translations vary widely.
*JRAS, 1891, 393 ff.; translated In King, CT, 131 ff.; KIB, 39 ff.;
ATLG^, I29ff. Texie u, Bilder, I.
; 27 f.; Sayce, Early Israel, 336 f.
Cf. the summary in KAT^, 498.

t So King; but Je. *a reed-hurdle' {Rohrgeflecht) while Jen. ;
renders Marduk placed a canopy in front of the waters, He created

:
'
earth and heaped it up against the canopy a reference to the '

—
nrniament (so KAT^).
—
48 PHGENICIAN
The main interest of the frag-ment lies in its non-legendary, matter-of-

fact representation of the primaeval condition of things, and of the
process of world-building. Of special correspondences with Gn. i there
are perhaps but two (a) the impersonal conception of chaos implied
:
in the appellative sense of tamtu ( T^hom) for the sea (jb) the comparison ;
of the firmament to a canopy, if that be the right interpretation of the

phrase. In the order of the creation of living beings it resembles more
the account in Gn. 2 but from that account it is sharply distinguished
;
by its assumption of a watery chaos in contrast to the arid waste of

Gn. 2^ It is therefore inadmissible to regard this text as a more illumi-
nating parallel to Gn, i than the Enuma elih tablets. The most that can
be said is that it suggests the possibility that in Babylonia there may
have existed recensions of the creation story in which the mythical
motive of a conflict between the creator and the chaos-monster played
no part, and that the biblical narrative goes back directly to one of
these. But when we consider that the Tiamat myth appears in both the
Greek accounts of Babylonian cosmogony, that echoes of it are found in
other ancient cosmogonies, and that in these cases its imagery is
modified in accordance with the religious ideas of the various races, the
greater probability is that the cosmogony of Gn. i is directly derived
from it, and that the elimination of its mythical and polytheistic elements
is due to the influence of the pure ethical monotheism of the OT.
Gu. in his Schopfung und Chaos was the first to call attention to
possible survivals of the creation myth in Hebrew poetry. We find
allusions to a conflict between Yahwe and a monster personified under
various names (Rahab, the Dragon, Leviathan, etc. but never T^h6m)\ —
and no explanation of them is so natural as that which traces them to
the idea of a struggle between Yahwe and the power of chaos, preceding
(as in the Babylonian myth) the creation of the world. The passages,
however, are late and we cannot be sure that they do not express a
;
literary interest in foreign mythology rather than a survival of a native

Hebrew myth.*
4. The Phoenician cosmogony, of which the three extant recensions
are given below,t hardly presents any instructive points of comparison
* The chief texts are Is. si^*-, Ps. Sgio^-, Jb. 26^2f.
(Rahab) ; Ps.
yî2ff.^
(Leviathan) Jb. 7^^ (the Dragon), etc. See the discussion
Is. 27^ ;
in Schopf. 30-1 1 1 ; and the criticisms of Che. EB, i. 950 f., and Nikel,
pp. 90-99.
t Eus. Prcep. Evang, i. 10 (ed. Heinichen, p. 37 ff.; cf. Orelli, Sanch,
Berytii Fragm. [1826]), gives the following account of the cosmogony

of Sanchuniathon (a Phoenician writer of unknown date, and even of
uncertain historicity) taken from Philo Byblius :
** Ttji* rCiv bXwv

dpxw viroriOeTai d^pa ô(pu)5rj Kal irvevfiardidT], ij ttpo^v
dipos ^0(pd}8ovs, Kal xdos doKepbv, ipe^QSes. TaOra S^ etuai direipa, Kal did
vo\i>v aluiya fir] ?xe»' iripas. "Ore 5^, <j>t]<xlv, rjpdadrjrb -rrvevfia rCoy Idicop dpxCov,
Kal iyivero aOyKpaais, i] ttXo/ctj iKelvrj iKX-qOr] Tlbdos. Avrrj 8k dpxv KTiaeici
dirdpTUiP' airrb 8k oiiK iyivcjcrKe t7]v airoO KTiffiv, Kal iK rijs avTod ffv/xTrXoKTJs
rod irveij/xaTos, iyivero Mcir. To0t6 tiv^s (pacLv 1\6p, ol dk, v8aT(JI)Sovs /i/êws
COSMOGONY 49
with Gn. I. It contains, however, in each of its recensions, the idea of
—
the world-eg-g a very widespread cosmological speculation to which
no Babylonian analogies have been found, but which is supposed to
underlie the last clause of Gn. i^. In Sanchuniathon, the union of
'
gloomy, breath-like Air with turbid dark Chaos produces a miry
'
' '
watery mixture called Mwr, in which all things originate, and first of all
certain living beings named watchers of heaven (d\"?^ 'si). *
These '
appear to be the constellations, and it is said that they are shaped like *
the form of an egg,' i.e., probably, are arranged in the sky in that form.
In Eudemos, the first principles are Xpdfos, Ildôs, and 'Ojj.lx>^r) the two :
latter give birth to 'Arjp and Aitpa, and from the union of these again
<T?i\piv. Kal iK Ta&rrjs iyivero iraaa airopa Kriaews, Koi yiveais tQv SXojv. Hu
5^ Ttva ^Qa ovk exovra atadtjaiv, e^ Cbv eyevero ^Qa voepa, Kal eKk-qd-q Zo}(f)a<T7]iJLlv
[ZuxpTjaafXLfx] tout' iaTLV ovpavov /car^Trrat. Kat aveirXdcrdri ofioicos [ + woO, see
Or.] axntô-Ti-' Kal i^^Xa/xxpe MCjt ijXids re Kal aeXrjvrj, dar^pes re Kal darpa
fieydXa" . . . ''Kal rod dipos diavxdaaPTos, 5id irvpuxyi-v Kal ttjs daXdaa-qs Kal
rrjs yri% iy^vero iruevfiaTa, Kal fccpr], Kal oi/paviujv vBdTOJu fxiyiaTai. KaTacpopal
Kal xvaeis. Kai iTreiSr) 8i,€Kpidr], Kal tou Idlov tSttov 5i€x<^p(-0'dr] did tt}v tov
rdSe ToTcrde, Kal avuippaâv'
ijXiov TTvpioaiv, Kal irdvTa avvqvT-qcre ttoXlv iv dipt
PpovTai T6 direTeXâdTjaav Kal ddTpairal, Kal irphs rbv irdrayov tuv ^povTuiv
Ta Trpoyeypap.[xha voepa ^Qa iyp-rjydpTjcrev Kal wpbs tov ^X^^ iirTvpr], Kal
iKt-VTjdr) ^v T€ y-Q Kal daXdaarj dppev Kal drjXv." . . . 'E^^s tovtois ovbfiaTa
tQ)v dvkixwv eliruv, Ndrow Kal Bopôv, Kal tQ>v XoiirQv, iiriXiyei' '*'AX\' oSroLye
rrpuTOL d(pi€pco(Tav Ta ttjs yTJs fiXaa-TrjfxaTa, Kal deovs ivbiiiaav, Kal irpocreKvvovv
TavTa, d0' tDv avroi re bieyivovTO, Kal ol eirb/xevoi, Kal oi irpb airOiv irdvTes, Kal
Xods Kal iiri9v(T€is eTroiovv." Kal iiriXiyei' " Afirat 5' âav at iirivoiai t^s
irpo(TKvvr)(jeu}s, 6/xoLai Ty aiiTuv dcrdeveiq., Kal \pvxrjs dToX/Miq.. Etrd <pr]<Ti
yeyevyjcrdai 4k toO KoXiria dvifiov, Kal yvvaiKbs avTov Bdau, tovto d^ vvKTa
ep/xr]V€ij€t,p, Aiwva Kal UpojTbyovov dvrjTovs dvdpas, ovru: KaXov/x4vovs.'^ . . .
[the sequel on
124 belowj.
p.
The other versions are from Eudemos (a pupil of Aristotle) and a
native writer Mochos : they are preserved in the following passage of
Damascius (cap. 125; ed. Kopp, p. 385):
2t5t6i'toi 8^ KaTd Tbv aiTbv avyypacpia (i.e. Eudemos) irpb irdvTwv Xpbvov
VTTOTldevTaL Kal Hbdov Kal 'O/xixXTjv. JIoôu 5^ Kal 'Op.ix^V^ pnyivTuv u»s bvolv
dpxCjv 'Aepa yeveadai. Kal Avpav, 'Aipa ixkv &KpaTov tov votjtov irapadrjXovvTes,
Avpav bk t6 i^ avTov Kivovfxeuov tov votjtov ûjTiKbv TrpoTOTrwfJia. JldXiv 8^
iK TOVTiov d/xôlv wTov [rd. (hop] yeppTjdrjpac /card Tbp povp olfiai. Tbv vorjTbp.
'fls 5^ ^^codep ^vbrj/jLov tt)v ôlvIkwp evpia-KO/xep /card McDxcv p.vdoXoyLav, Aid^p
fjv rb irpCiTov Kal 'Arjp al 860 aCrai dpxat, i^ (hv yeppaTai OiX<ji)/j.bs, 6 porjrbs
&Kpop tcO potjtov' i^ o5 eavTip avpeXdovTos yepprjdrjpai <pri<n
debs, airrb olfxai rb
"Kovaupbp, dpoiyia TrpuTOv, elra wbv' tovtov ixkv olp-ai. top votjTbp povp XiyoPTcs,
Tbp 8k dpoiyia Xovaupbp, tt]p porjT^p bvpafiip dre irpdyrriv StaKplpaaap tt)p
dSidKpiTOP <l>v(np, el firi &pa fieTa rds 860 dpxds Tb fikv &Kpop icrrlp dpe/xos 6
eh, Tb 8k fjiiffop oi 8vo dpe/xoi Ai\}/ re Kal N(5ros' irowvai ydp ttws Kal To&rovs
irpb TOV OvXojfiov' b Sk OvXojfibs avTbs 6 poijTbs etr] povs, 6 5^ dpoiyeiis, Xovaupbs,
i) fierd Tb porjrbp irpdiTrj rdf ts, Tb 8k wbp 6 ovpav6s' XiyeTai ydp i^ airov hayipTOs
els S60, yepâdai oOpavbs Kal yij, tup bLxoTO/xTj/xdTotp eKaTepov.
50 COSMOGONIES
proceeds *an egg.'' More striking is the expression of the idea in
Mochos. Here the union of klQ-^p and 'At7p produces OvXu/nos (oViy), from
which proceed Xovaupos, the first opener,' and then 'an
*
egg.' It is
afterwards explained that the egg is the heaven, and that when it is split
in two (? by Xouawpos) the one half forms the heaven and the other the
earth. It may introduce consistency into these representations if we
suppose that in the process of evolution the primaeval chaos (which is
coextensive with the future heaven and earth) assumes the shape of an
eg-g-, and that this is afterwards divided into two parts, corresponding
to the heaven and the earth. The function of Xovau)pos is thus analogous
to the act of Marduk in cleaving the body of Tiamat in two. But
obviously all this throws remarkably little light on Gn. i^. Another —
supposed point of contact is the resemblance between the name Baav
and the Heb. ?nii. In Sanchuniathon Baav is explained as night, and
is said to be the wife of the Kolpia-wind, and mother of Al(vv and
Ilpurrdyopos, the first pair of mortals. It is evident that there is much
confusion in this part of the extract and it is not unreasonably con-
;
jectured that Alibv and UpcoTdyovos were really the first pair of emanations,
and Kolpia and Baau the chaotic principles from which they spring ;
so that they may be the cosmological equivalents of TohA and Bohd

in Gn. There is a strong probability that the name Baau is connected
with Bau, a Babylonian mother-goddess (see ATLO^, i6i) but the ;
evidence is too slight to enable us to say that specifically Phoenician

influences are traceable in Gn. i^
5. A division of creation into six stages, in an order similar to that of
Gn. I, appears in the late book of the Bundehesh (the Parsee Genesis),
where the periods are connected with the six annual festivals called
Gahanbars, so as to form a creative year, parallel to the week of Gn. i.
The order is: i. Heaven; 2. Water; 3. Earth; 4. Plants; 5. Animals;
6. Men. We miss from the enumeration Light, which in Zoroastrian-
:
ism is an uncreated element and the Heavenly bodies, which are said
;
to belong to an earlier creation (Tiele, Gesch. d. Rel. im Altert. ii. 296).

The late date of the Bundehesh leaves room, of course, for the suspicion
of biblical influence ; but it is thought by some that the same order can
be traced in a passage of the younger Avesta, and that it may belong
to ancient Iranian tradition (Tiele, /.c, and AJ?W, vi. 244 ff. Caland,;
ThT, xxiii. i79fF.).^The most remarkable of all known parallels to the

six days' scheme of Gn. is found in a cosmogony attributed to the
ancient Etruscans by Suidas (Lexicon, s.v. Tvpprjvia). Here the creation
is said to have been accomplished in six periods of looo years, in the
following order i. Heaven and Earth 2. the Firmament 3. Sea and

: ; ;
Water 4. Sun and Moon 5. Souls of Animals 6. Man (see K. O. Muller,

; ; ;
Die Eirusker, ii. 38; ATLO^, 154 f.). Suidas, however, lived not earlier
than the loth cent. A.D., and though his information may have been
derived from ancient sources, we cannot be sure that his account is not
coloured by knowledge of the Hebrew cosmogony.
II. 4B-III. 24 5^
II. 4b -III. 24. — The Creation and Fall of Man (J).
The passage forms a complete and closely articulated

narrative,* of which the leading motive man's loss of his is
original innocence and happiness through eating forbidden

fruit, and his consequent expulsion from the garden of Eden.
The account of creation in 2*^^- had primarily, perhaps, an

independent interest ;
yet it contains little that is not
directly subservient to the main theme developed in oh. 3.
It is scarcely to be called a cosmogony, for the making of
*earth and heaven (2*^) is assumed without being described
'
;
the narrative springs from an early phase of thought which

was interested in the beginnings of human life and history,
but had not advanced to speculation on the origin of heaven
and earth (cf. Frankenberg in Gu.^ 24). From ch. i it
differs fundamentally both in its conception of the primal
condition of the world as an arid, waterless waste (2^^- : ct.
i^), and in the order of creative works viz. Man C^), Trees :
(»), Animals (I8-20),

Woman (2i-23). Alike in this arrange-
ment and in the supplementary features the garden (^- ^*^^-), —
the mix^culous trees (^^), the appointments regarding man's
position in the world (^^"^^), and the remarkable omissions
(plants, fishes, etc.) —
it is governed by the main episode to
which it leads up (ch. 3), with its account of the temptation

by the serpent (^~'''), the transgression (^- '^), the inquest ^~^^\
the sentences (^*~^^), and the expulsion from Eden (22"2*).
The story thus summarised is one of the most charming- idylls in

literature: ch. 3 is justly described by Gu. as the 'pearl of Genesis.'
Its literary and aesthetic character is best appreciated by comparison
with ch. I. Instead of the formal precision, the schematic disposition,
the stereotyped diction, the aim at scientific classification, which distin-
guish the great cosmogony, we have here a narrative marked by child-
like simplicity of conception, exnberant though pure imagination, and a
captivating freedom of style. Instead of lifting God far above man and
nature, this writer revels in the most exquisite anthropomorphisms he ;
does not shrink from speaking of God as walking in His garden in the
cool of the day (3^), or making experiments for the welfare of His first
creature (2^^*^-), or arriving at a knowledge of man's sin by a searching
Cf. especially 2'^^^ with 3^9- 23 2^' «f- with 31-5- "• i?- 22 28b. 18 ^jth
.
;
âsf. 2I9
2i» with 3' 221-23 with 3I6*') 2^5 with 3'- 1<«..
.
;
^'^' 14 ; with 3^2 ;
(2^4 ;
52 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
examination (3^^*)> etc. While the purely mythological phase of thought

has long been outgrown, a mythical background everywhere appears ;
the happy garden of God, the magic trees, the speaking serpent, the
Cherubim and Flaming Sword, are all emblems derived from a more
ancient religious tradition. Yet in depth of moral and religious insight
the passage is unsurpassed in the OT. We have but to think of its
delicate handling of the question of sex, its profound psychology of
temptation and conscience, and its serious view of sin, in order to realise
the educative influence of revealed religion in the life of ancient Israel.
It has to be added that we detect here the first note of that sombre,
almost melancholy, outlook on human life which pervades the older
stratum of Gn. i-ii. Cf. the characterisation in We. Prol.^ 302 ff. ; Gu.
p. 22 fF.
Source. — The features just noted, together with the use of the divine
name m,T, show beyond doubt that the passage belongs to the Yahwistic
cycle of narratives (J). Expressions characteristic of this document are
found in nmp 2^S oycn 2^^,nNrno 3'^, inN 3"- 1^, juîj; r^^- 1^, luyn 3!^ and ;
(incontrast to P) li", create,' instead of Nin, :\-\'^r^ n'n instead of X-w^r^ 'n,
*
D"n nDty: instead of 'n nn (see on 7^^) ; and the constant use of ace. suff.
to the verb.
—
Traces of Composition. That the literary unity of the narrative is
not perfect there are several indications, more or less decisive, (i) The
geographical section 2^''"^^ is regarded by most critics (since Ewald) as
a later insertion, on the grounds that it is out of keeping with the
simplicity of the main narrative, and seriously interrupts its sequence.
The question is whether it be merely an isolated interpolation, or an
extract from a parallel recension. If the latter be in evidence, we know
too little of its character to say that 2}^'^'^ could not have belonged to it.
At all events the objections urged would apply only to ^^"^^ ; and there
^° (or at least ^''*)
is much to be said, on this assumption, for retaining
as a parallel to v." (Ho.).— (2) A more difficult problem is the confusion

regarding the two trees on which the fate of man depends, a point to
which attention was first directed by Bu. According to 2^^ the tree of
life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil grew together in the
midst of the garden, and in 2^^ the second alone is made the test of the
man's obedience. But ch. 3 (down to v.î) knows of only one tree in the
midst of the garden, and that obviously (though it is never so named)
the tree of knowledge. The tree of life plays no part in the story except
in 322- 24^ and its sudden introduction there only creates fresh embarrass-
ment for if this tree also was forbidden, the writer's silence about it in
;
2" 3' is inexplicable and if it was not forbidden, can we suppose that
;
in the author's intention the boon of immortality was placed freely

i within man's reach during the period of his probation ? So far as the
main narrative is concerned, the tree of life is an irrelevance and we
;
shall see immediately that the part where it does enter into the story is
precisely the part where signs of redaction or dual authorship accumu-
late.— (3) The clearest indication of a double recension is found .in the
twofold account of the expulsion from Eden f^'
'^^.
Here 22 and "^
:
clearly hang together; ^ and î

are as clearly out of their proper
II. 4B-III. 24 53
position hence ; may have been the original continuation of *•, to
^'
which forms a natural sequel. There is thus some reason to believe

it
that in this instance, at any rate, the tree of life is not from the hand of
*
'
the chief narrator. —

(4) Other and less certain duplicates are 2^ 2^" ('^"^^> : ||
-
(see above), 8a||9» (the planting- of the garden) and ^^ ^"^ (the placing ;
of man in it) 2^||3^° (the naming of the woman). —(5) Bu. (Urg. 232 fF.)
;
was the first to suggest that the double name D'nhn m.T (which is all but
peculiar to this section) has arisen through amalgamation of sources.
His theory in its broader aspects has been stated on p. 3, above it is ;
enough here to point out its bearing on the compound name in Gn. 2 f-
It is assumed that two closely parallel accounts existed, one of which
(J^) employed only dmSn, the other (JJ) only mn\ When these were
combined the editor harmonised them by adding D'hSn to mn^ everywhere
in JJ, and prefixing m.T to D'n'?N everywhere in J® except in the colloquy
between the serpent and the woman (3^'^), where the general name was
felt to be more appropriate.* The reasoning is precarious but if it be ;
sound, it follows that 3^"^ must be assigned to J* and since these vv. ;
are part of the main narrative (that which speaks only of the tree
of knowledge), there remain for JJ only 32^- ^*, and possibly some variants
and glosses in the earlier part of the narrative. On the whole, the facts—
seem to warrant these conclusions of the Paradise story two recen-
:
sions existed in one, the only tree mentioned was the tree of the know-
;
ledge of good and evil, while the other certainly contained the tree of life
(so v. Doorninck, ThT, xxxix. 225 f.) and possibly both trees f the ;
former supplied the basis of our present narrative, and is practically

complete, while the second is so fragmentary that all attempt to recon-
struct even its main outlines must be abandoned as hopeless.
* So Gu. A still more complete explanation of this particular point

would be afforded by the somewhat intricate original hypothesis of Bu.
He suggested that the primary narrative (J^) in which nin» was regularly
used, except in 3^'^, was re-written and supplemented by J^ who sub-
stituted DM /N for ni.T the two narratives were subsequently amalgamated
;
in rather mechanical fashion by J^, with the result that wherever the
divine names differed both were retained, and where the documents
agreed d'hSn alone appears {Urg: 233 f.). Later in the volume (471 ff.)
the hypothesis is withdrawn in favour of the view that J^ contained no
—
Paradise story at all. A similar explanation is given by v. Doorninck
{I.e. 239), who thinks the retention of D'nhK in 3'"^ was due to the redactor's
desire to avoid the imputation of falsehood to Yahwe !
t The point here depends on the degree of similarity assumed to

have obtained between the two recensions. Gu. who assumes that the ,
resemblance was very close, holds that in JJ probably both trees were
concerned in the fall of man. But the text gives no indication that in
]i the knowledge of good and evil was attained by eating the fruit of a
tree other wa)'s of procuring unlawful knowledge are conceivable

: ;
and it is therefore possible that in this version the tree of

alone life
occupied a position analogous to that of the tree of knowledge in the

other (see, further, Gressmann, ARW, x. 355 f.).
— — —
4b-7. —The creation of man. — On the somewhat in-
volved construction of the section, see the footnote. 4b.

AI the time when Yahwe Elohini made, etc.] The double
name Q"''7^^? -^^n], which is all but peculiar to Gn. 2 f., is
probably to be explained as a result of redactional operations

{v.t'.), rather than (with Reuss, Ayles, al.) as a feature of
the isolated source from which these two chapters were
taken. earth and heaven] The unusual order (which is
reversed by jijul(!J^) appears again only in Ps. 148^^. —

5. there was as yet no bush, etc.]Or (on Di.'s construction)
while as yet there was no, etc. The rare word n'îi' denotes
elsewhere (21^^ [E], Jb. 30*-'^) a desert shrub (so Syr.,
Arab.); but a wider sense is attested by Ass. and Phoen.
It is difficult to say whether here it means wild as opposed
4b-7. The sudden change of style and language shows that the
transition to the Yahwistic document takes place at the middle of v.^.
The construction presents the same syntactic ambiguity as i^'^ (see the
*^
note there) ; except, of course, that there can be no question of taking
as an independent sentence. We may also set aside the conjecture
(We. Prol.^ 297 f. KS. al.) that the clause is the conclusion of a lost
;
sentence of J, as inconsistent with the natural position of the time

determination in Heb. *^ must therefore be joined as prot. to what
follows and the question is whether the apod, commences at ^ (Tu.
;
Str. Dri. al,), or (with ^^' as a parenthesis) at (Di. Gu. al.). In "^
syntax either view admissible but the first yields the better sense.
is ;
The state of things described in ^^- evidently lasted some time hence ;
it is not correct to say that Yahwe made man at the time when He made
heaven and earth to connect directly with *** is "to identify a period
:
"^
(v.^) with a point [v.'') of time" (Spurrell). —

On the form of apod., see
again Dri. T. § 78. — 4. ova always emphasises contemporaneousness of
two events (cf. 2" 3^); the indefiniteness lies in the subst., which often
covers a space of time (= when Ex. 6"^^ 32^*, Jer. 1 1^ etc.). dmVn nin']
' ' :
in Hex. only Ex. (f^ elsewhere 2 Sa. 722- -\ Jon. 46, Ps. 72^8 g^9. 12^
;
I Ch. 17^^ 2 Ch. 6^^ ffir uses the expression frequently up to 9^2^ but its
usage is not uniform even in chs. 2. 3. The double name has sometimes
been explained by the supposition that an editor added dmSx to the
original mn' in order to smooth the transition from P to J, or as a hint
to the Synagogue reader to substitute dmSn for mn' but that is scarcely ;
satisfactory. A more adequate solution is afforded by the theory

of Bu. and Gu., on which see p. 53. Barton and Che. {TBAI, 99 f.)
take it as a compound of the same type as Melek-AUart, etc., an
utterly improbable suggestion. —
5. n'tf is probably the same as Ass.
si]}tu, from ^J = 'grow high' (Del. Hdwb.), and hence might include
trees, as rendered by .S'C —
On ncj-y, see on i^^ The gen. ri-i^n, common
—
II. 4-6 55
to cultivated plants (Hupf. Gu.), or perennials as opposed

to annuals (Ho.). — P'or the earth's barrenness two reasons
are assigned: (i) the absence of rain, and (2) the lack of
cultivation. In the East, however, the essence of husbandry
isirrigation hence the two conditions of fertility corre-
;
spond broadly to the Arabian (and Talmudic) contrast

between land watered by the Baal and that watered by
human labour (Rob. Sm. i?5^, 96 ff.). to till the ground]
This, therefore, man's original destiny, though afterwards

is
it is imposed on him as a curse, an indication of the —

fusion of variant traditions. "^97^' both here and v.^, has
probably the restricted sense of '
soil,' '
arable land '
(cf. 4^*).
— 6. but a flood (or fnisty v.i.) used to come up (periodically)]
**The idea of the author appears to be that the ground

was rendered capable of cultivation by the overflow of some
great river " (Ayles).
imagine any other purpose to be served by

It is certainly difficult to
the *
flood ' than to induce for we can hardly attribute to the
fertility,
writer the trivial idea that it had simply the effect of moistening- the soil
for the formation of man, etc. (Ra. al., cf. Gu. Che. TBAI, 87). But this
appears to neutralise ^'"*, since rain is no longer an indispensable condi-
tion of vegetation. Ho., accordingly, proposes to remove ^ and to treat
it as a variant of
^"'^^ The meaning might be, however, that the flood,
when supplemented by human labour, was sufficient to fertilise the
Ûddmdhy but had, of course, no effect on the steppes, which were de-
pendent on rain. The difficulty is not removed if we render mist and '
' ;
the brevity of the narrative leaves other questions unanswered such as. ;
When was rain first sent on the earth ? At what stage are we to place
the creation of the cereals? etc.
to both, denotes open country, as opposed sometimes to cities or houses,

sometimes to enclosed cultivated land (De. 96). On D"ia with impf. see —
G-K. § 107c; Dri. T. § 27/3. The rendering 'before' (ffi [one of the
—
deviations mentioned in Mechilta see on i^] H) would imply D"ia3, and
is wrong. —
6. in] ©
^77777, Aq. i-jri^Xvafids, 'B fans, ^ "^^Q^CliDj ^^ ^^"y.
Che. conj. hn; others ]]]l (after Vns.). The word has no etymol. in
;
Heb., and the only other occurrence (Jb. 36^'^) is even more obscure than
this. Cloud (C) or mist is a natural guess, and it is doubtful if it
' ' *
'
be anything better. The meaning flood comes from Ass. edi7, applied
' '
to the annual overflow of a river (Del. Hd-wb.), note the freq. impf. Gu. —
thinks it a technical semi-mythological term of the same order as Teh6?n,
with which Ra. seems to connect it; while lEz. interprets 'cloud,' but
confounds the word with tn, calamity (Zeph. i^^) so Aq. who renders
' '
; ,
the latter by ^m.pXvafxos in Pr. i^**, Jb. :ô^^{see Ber. R, § 13).— On the tenses.
— —
If the above explanation be correct, there is a confusion of two

points of view which throws an interesting- light on the origin of the
story. The rain is suggested by experience of a dry country, like
Palestine. The flood, on the other hand, is a reminiscence of the
an alluvial country like the Euphrates
entirely different state of things in
valley, where husbandry depends on artificial irrigation assisted by
periodic inundations. While, therefore, there may be a Babylonian
basis to the myth, it must have taken its present shape in some drier
region, presumably in Palestine. To say that it " describes the . . .
phenomena witnessed by the first colonists of Babylonia," involves more

than '
mythic exaggeration ' (Che. EB, 949).
7. Yahwe Elohtm moulded man] The verb

"iVJ (avoided by
P) is and that figure under-

used, in the ptcp., of the potter ;
lies the representation. An Egyptian picture shows the

god Chnum forming human beings on the potter's disc
—
{ATLO^j 146). The idea of man as made of clay or earth
appears in Babylonian but is indeed universal, and pervades
;
the whole OT. hreath of life] Omit the art. The phrase
recurs only 7^^ (J), where life, and
it denotes the animal
there is supposing another meaning here.
no reason for
<' Subscribere eorum sententise non dubito qui de animali
hominis vita locum hunc exponunt " (Calvin). man became
a living being-] t-^S?. here is not a constituent of human
nature, but denotes the personality as a whole.
The V. has commonly been treated as a locus classicus of OT

anthropology, and as determining the relations of the three elements of
— —
human nature flesh, soul, spirit to one another. It is supposed to
see G-K. § 112^; Dri. T. § 113, 4(/3).—7. nonx dik] Both words are . . .
of uncertain etymology. The old derivation from the vb. ' be red ( . . ' .
irv^pbv iireidrjirep atrb TrjS irv^pds yrjs (()Vpadeicrri$ iyeySvei : Jos. Ant. i.34) is
generally abandoned, but none better has been found to replace it (recent
theories in Di. 53 f). According to Noldeke {ZDMG, xl. 722), din
appears in Arab, as 'dndm (cf Haupt, ib. Ixi. 194). Frd. Del.'s view,
that both words embody the idea of tillage, seems (as Di. says) to rest
on the ambiguity of the German bauen but it is very near the thought
;
of this passage man is made from the soil, lives by its cultivation, and
:
returns to it at death. —
nsy] Ace. of material, G-K. § 117 hh. Gu. regards
it —
as a variant to ryryM^n from ]K n'n ^£3:] This appears to be the only
place where the phrase is applied to man ; elsewhere to animals (120.24
etc.). '3, primarily 'breath,' denotes usually the vital principle (with
various mental connotations), and ultimately the whole being thus
animated— the person. The last is the only sense consistent with the
structure of the sentence here.
— —
n. 7, 8 57
teach that the soul (B'â) arises through the union of the universal life-
principle (nn) with the material frame (T^?) cf. e.g. Griineisen, Ahnen- :
kultus, 34 f. No such ideas are expressed neither -\iif2 nor nn is men- :
tioned, while 1^33 is not applied to a separate element of man's being-, but
to the whole man in possession of vital powers. "All that seems in
question here is just the giving of vitality to man. There seems no
allusion to man's immaterial being, to his spiritual element. Vitality . . .
is communicated by God, and he is here represented as communicating

"
it by breathing into man's nostrils that breath which is the sign of life
(Davidson, OTTh. 194). At the same time, the fact that God imparts
his own breath to man, marks the dignity of man above the animals it :
is J's equivalent for the image of God.' '
8-17. The garden of Eden.— That the planting- of the

garden was subsequent to the creation of man is the un-
doubted meaning of the writer the rendering plantaverat ;
(}J: so lEz.) is grammatically impossible, and is connected

with a misconception of mpO below. a garden in Eden\
This is perhaps the only place where .Eden (as a geo-
graphical designation) is distinguished from the garden
(cf. 210-15 323.24 ^16^ Is. 5i3^ Ezk. 28I3 3i9-16.18 3585^ JJ^ ^3,
Sir. 40^^). The common phrase H^ W would suggest to a

Hebrew the idea 'garden of delight,' as it is rendered by ^
(often) and ^ {y.i.). There is no probability that the
proper name was actually coined in this sense. It is derived
by the younger Del. and Schrader from Bab. edinu^ *
plain,'
'steppe,'or 'desert' (Del. P«r. 80; KAT^, 26L', KAT^, ^^g);
but it is a somewhat precarious inference that the garden
was conceived as an oasis in the midst of a desert (Ho.).
^1i?P] ' 2'^ ^^6 (far) East' ; i.e. from the Palestinian standpoint
of the author ; not, of course, to be identified with any other
T}^, within the geographical horizon of the Israelites (see
2 Ki. 19I2 [ = Is. 3712], Ezk. 2723, Am. i^).
Besides the passages cited above, the idea of a divine garden

appears also in Gn. i3i<', Ezk. 31^. Usually it is a mere symbol of
8. p] ffir Trapddeiaos (cf. Dins, Ca. 4'^ Ec. 2^, Neh. 2^ probably from
:
Pers.), and so VB. —

ny] is regularly treated as nom. prop, by C*^ 5, by
U only 4^^ (everywhere else as appellative : voluptasy deliciee). ffi has
'E5e/i only in 2^-^*' 4^^ elsewhere Tpv4>r][s]^ except Is. 51^ (TrapdSeio-os).
;
— onpo] Lit. *in front' (on the jD see Kon. Lgb. ii. p. 318; BDB, 578*'):
in the hist, books it always means east or eastward but in prophs.
*
'
'
'
;
and Pss. it usually has temporal sense (• of old ') ; and so it is misunder-
luxuriant fertility, especially in respect of its lordly trees (Ezk.

318M6. 18) . but in Ezk. 28^' it is mentioned as the residence of a semi-
divine being. Most of the allusions are explicable as based on Gn. 2 f. ;
but the imagery of Ezk. 28 reveals a highly mythological conception of
which few traces remain in the present narrative. If the idea be primitive
Semitic (and ]i is common to all the leading dialects), it may originate in
the sacred grove {Hima) "where water and verdure are united, where
the fruits of the sacred trees are taboo, and the wild animals are 'anls^
i.e. on good terms with man, because they may not be frightened
away" (We. Prol.^ 2>o^^ cf. Held. 141 Barton, SO^, 96). In early times
; ;
such spots of natural fertility were the haunts of the gods or super-
natural beings {RS^, 102 ff.). But from the wide diffusion of the myth,
and the facts pointed out on p. 93 f. below, it is plain that the conception
has been enriched by material from different quarters, and had passed
through a mythological phase before it came into the hands of the
biblical writers. Such sacred groves were common in Babylonia, and
mythological idealisations of them enter largely into the religious
literature (see ATLO"^, 195 ff.).
9. all sorts of trees food] The primitive vegetation

. . .
isconceived as cbnsisting solely of trees, on whose fruit

man was to subsist the appearance of herbs is a result of
;
the curse pronounced on the ground (3^^*0- — ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^f
life (was) in the midst] On Bu.'s strictures on the form of the

sentence, v.i. The intricate question of the two trees must
be reserved for separate discussion (pp. 52 94) f., ; for the
present form of the story both are indispensable. The tree
stood here by Vns. except (& (U in principio, etc.). 9. ^r'?3] G-K.

all —
§ 127 b. — nynn] The use
of art. with inf. const, is very rare (Dav. § 19), but
is explained by the frequent use of nVT as abstr. noun. Otherwise the
construction is regular, yni 3iB being ace, not gen. of obj. Budde —
{Urg. 51 f.) up of the compound obj. by the
objects to the splitting
secondary pred. \iri iidd, and thinks the original text must have been
'\y\ nj?nn j'y pn "iinni thus finding a confirmation of the theory that the
;
primary narrative knew of only one tree, and that the tree of knowledge
(p. 52 so Ba. Ho. Gu. al.). In view of the instances examined by Dri.
;
in Hebraica, ii. 33, it is doubtful if the grammatical argument can be

sustained but if it had any force it ought certainly to lead to the
;
excision of the second member rather than of the first (Kuen. ThT, 1884,
136; v. Doorninck, ib., 1905, 225 f. Eerdmans, ib. 494 ff.). A more im-
;
portant point is The writer's use

the absence of nN before the def. obj.
of this part, very discriminating and its omission suggests that ^^ is
is ;
really a nominal clause, as rendered above. If we were to indulge in

analysis of sources, we might put ^^ (in whole or in part) after ^*, and
assign it to that secondary stratum of narrative which undoubtedly
spoke of a tree of life (3^-).
1 — ;
II. 9-1 59
of life, whose fruit confers immortality (3^2; cf. Pr. 3^^ 11^^
13^^ 15*; further, Ezk. 47^, Rev. 22^), is a widely diffused
idea (see Di. 49 ; Wiinsche, Die Sagen votn Lebensbaunt u.
Lebenswasser). The tree of knowledge is a more refined
conception ; its property of communicating knowledge of
good and evil is, however, magical, like that of the other
a connexion with oracular trees (Lenormant, Or. i. 85 f.
Baudissin, Stud. ii. 227) is not so probable. As to what is
meant by ' knowing good and evil,' see p. 95 ff.
The life is plausibly supposed by Barton

primitive Semitic tree of
{SO^, 92 have been the date-palm; and this corresponds to the
f.) to
sacred palm in the sanctuary of Ea at Eridu (IV R. 15*), and also to
the conventionalised sacred tree of the seals and palace-reliefs, which
is considered to be a palm combined with some species of conifer. Cf.
also the sacred cedar in the cedar forest of Gilg.^ Tabs. IV. V. For
these and other Bab. parallels, see ATLO^y 195 ff.
10. a -river issued (or issues) from Eden] The language

does not necessarily imply that the fountain-head was outside
the garden (Dri. Ben.); the vb. 5<V^ is used of the rise of a
stream at its source (Ex. 17^, Nu. 20^^, Ju. 15^^, Ezk. 47^,
Zee. 14^, Jl. 4^^). Whether the ptcp. expresses past or
present time cannot be determined. -from thence it divides
itself] The from the garden as a single stream,
river issues
then divides into four branches, which are the four great
rivers of the world. The site of Paradise, therefore, is at the
common source of the four rivers in question (pp. 62-66 below).
That is the plain meaning of the verse, however inconsistent
it may be with physical geography. — II. Pison] The name
occurs (along with Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan, and Gihon)
10. ITS'] Freq. impf. ? So Dri. T. §§ 30 a, 113, 4/3; G-K. § 107^

('always taking" place afresh'), Dav. § 54(6). That seems hardly
natural. Is it possible that for once D^'p could have the effect of tK in
transporting" the mind to a point whence a new development takes
—
place? (Dav. § 45, R. 2). dtk-j] Not 'sources' but 'branches'; as
Arab, ras en-nahr (as distinct from ras eVain) means the point of
divergence of two streams (Wetzstein, quoted by De., p. 82). So Ass.
rtk ndri or rU ndr, of the point of divergence {Ausgangsort) of a canal
(Del. Par. 98, 191). —
ii. nnN.n] See on i^— nnon Nin] On the determina-
tion of pred., Dav. § 19, R. 3; cf. G-K. § 126 >& (so v.i3f.)._n'?'inn] If
the art. be genuine, it shows that the name was significant ('sandland,'
— — —
6o PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
in Sir. 24^^, but nowhere else in OT. That it was not a

familiar name to the Hebrews is shown by the topo-
graphical description which follows. On the various
speculative identifications, see De. and Di., and p. 64 f.
below. the whole land of HavilaK\ The phraseology
indicates that the name is used with some vagueness,
and considerable latitude. In lo''' ^9 25^^ etc., Havilah
seems to be a district of Arabia (see p. 202) but we cannot ;
be sure that it bears the same meaning in the mythically

coloured geography of this passage. 12. Two other pro- —
ducts of the region are specified but neither helps to an ;
identification of the locality. bedolah] a substance well

known to the Israelites (Nu. 11^), is undoubtedly the
fragrant but bitter gum called by the Greeks pSeXXiov or
/SSekXa. Pliny {N'/I, xii. 35 f.) says the best kind grew in
Bactriana, but adds that it was found also in Arabia, India,
Media, and Babylonia. Ihe loham slone] A highly esteemed
from ^"in ?) ; but everywhere else it is wanting-, and au. omits it here. — 12.
3nn] On metheg and hat.-pathach, see G-K. §§ 10^, 16^,/; Kon. i. § 10,
6e5 (of. 1^^). —
Nin] The first instance of this Qr^ perpetuum of the
Pent., where the regular N'n is found only Gn. 14^ 20'' 38-% Lv. 7}^ 11^"
jîo. 31 j53i 2i9j Nu. 5^^^-. Kon. {Lgh. i. p. I24ff.) almost alone amongst
modern scholars still holds to the opinion that the epicene consonantal
form is genuinely archaic but the verdict of philology and of Hex.
;
criticism seems decisive against that view. It must be a graphic error

of some scribe or school of scribes whether proceeding from the original
:
scrip, def. Nn or not does not much matter (see Dri. and White's note
onLv. i^^\x\SBOT,^^. 25f.).— 3ib] ux + nxp.— n'?n3n] Of the ancient Vns.
(K alone has misunderstood the word, rendering here 6 dvdpa^ (red
garnet), and in Nu. 11' (the only other occurrence) KpvcrTaXXos. S
[joJÔ;.^ can only be a clerical error. That it is not a gem is
proved by the absence of pN. DHB'n px] — ffi 6 \idos 6 irpda-Lvos (leek-
green stone) ; other Gk. Vns. 8vv^, and so 3J (onjychtnus) ; S P0;.lli,
3r° Philology has as yet thrown no light on the word, though

k'?ti3.
a connexion with Bab. sdmtii is probable. Myres {EB, 4808 f.) makes
the interesting suggestion that it originally denoted malachite, which
is at once striped and green, and that after malachite ceased to be
valued tradition wavered between the onyx (striped) and the beryl
(green). Petrie, on the other hand {DB, iv. 620), thinks that in early
times it was green felspar, afterwards confused with the beryl. It is
at least noteworthy that Jen. {KIB, vi. i, 405) is led on independent
grounds to identify sdtntu with malachite. But is malachite found in any

— — — ;
II. 12—14 6r
gem (Jb. 28^^), suitable for engraving- (Ex.

28^ etc.), one
of the precious stones of and apparently Eden (Ezk. 28^^),
used in architecture (i Ch. 29^). From the Greek equiva-

lents it is generally supposed to be either the onyx or the
beryl (v.t.). According to Pliny, the latter was obtained
from India, the former from India and Arabia {JVH, xxxvii.
76, 86). — 13. Gikon] The name of a well on the E of
Jerusalem (the Virgin's spring : i which lEz.
Ki. i^^ etc.),
strangely takes to be meant here. In Jewish and Christian
tradition it was persistently identified with the Nile (Si. 24^^
^ of Jer. 2^^ [where "lintJ' is translated Trjwv]; Jos. An^. i.
39,
and the Fathers generally). The great difficulty of that view
is that the Nile was as well known to the Hebrews as the
Euphrates, and no reason appears either for the mysterious

designation, or the vague description appended to the
name. land of Kus\ Usually Ethiopia but see on 10^. ;
14. Hiddeket] is certainly the Tigris, though the name

occurs only once again (Dn. 10*). in front of !Arstcr\ Either
between it and the spectator, or to the east of it the :
latter view is adopted by nearly all comm. but the parallels ;
are indecisive, and the point is not absolutely settled.

Geographically the former would be more correct, since
the centre of the Assyrian Empire lay E of the Tigris.
The second view can be maintained only if "ÎK'X be the city
reg-ion that could be plausibly identified with Havilah ? — 13. pn'j] Prob-
ably from sj nu (Jb. 38^ 4022) = ' burstings forth.' — 14. dk'] © om. — Spin]
Bab. Idigla, Diglat, Aram, and AX£J5, Arab. Diglat\ then Old
n"?^^
and li-ypy]^. The Pers. Tigrd

Pers. TigrA, Pehlevi Digrat, Or. T/7pis
was explained by a popular etymology as arrow-swift (Strabo) and '
' ;
similarly it was believed that the Hebrews saw in their name a compound
of in, 'sharp,' and S"3> 'swift,' —
a view given by Ra., and mentioned
with some scorn by lEz. Hommel's derivation {AHT, 315) from fyadd,
'wadi,' and n^jpi ( = 'wadi of Diklah,' Gn. lo^^), is of interest only in
connexion with his peculiar theory of the site of Paradise. noip] —
Rendered '
in front ' by (& {KarhavTi), Si (Wnool^) and 5J {contra) ;
as 'eastward' by Aq. S. {i^ avaroX^s) and ^^ (nhjid'?). This last is also

the view of Ra. lEz. and of most moderns. But see No. ZDMG,
xxxiii. 532, where the sense eastward is decisively rejected. The
'
'
other examples are 4^^, i Sa. I3^ Ezk. 39^^!. ms] Bab. Purdtu, Old —
Pers. Ufrdtuy whence Gr. Ei'0pdr7;s.
62 THE SITE OF PARADISE
which was the ancient capital of the Empire, now Katat

êrkat on the W
bank of the river. But that city was
replaced as capital by Kalhi as early as 1300 B.C., and is
never mentioned in OT. It is at least premature to find
in this circumstance a conclusive proof that the Paradise
legend had wandered to Palestine before 1300 B.C. (Gress-
mann, ARW, x. 2iM)'—Euphrates\ The name (niB) needed
no explanation to a Hebrew reader : it is the inj par excel-
OT (Is. 87 and often).

lence of the
The site —
of Eden. If the explanation given above of v.*" be correct,
—and the only sense which the words will naturally bear, it is
it is —
obvious that a real locality answering to the description of Eden exists
and has existed nowhere on the face of the earth. The Euphrates and
Tigris are not and never were branches of a single stream and the ;
idea that two other great rivers sprang from the same source places
the whole representation outside the sphere of real geographical
knowledge. In i""^*, in short, we have to do with a semi-mythical
geography, which the Hebrews no doubt believed to correspond with
fkct, but which is based neither on accurate knowledge of the region
in question,nor on authentic tradition handed down from the ancestors
of the human race. Nevertheless, the question where the Hebrew
imagination located Paradise is one of great interest and many of ;
the proposed solutions are of value, not only for the light they have
thrown on the details of ^"*^*, but also for the questions they raise as to
the origin and character of the Paradise-myth. This is true both of
those which deny, and of those which admit, the presence of a mythical
^"^^.
element in the geography of
1. Several recent theories seek an exact determination of the locality
of Paradise, and of all the data of

i""^*,
at the cost of a somewhat un-
natural exegesis of v.^^ That of Frd. Del. {Wo lag das Paradies?,
1881) is based partly on the fact that N of Babylon (in the vicinity of
Bagdad) the Euphrates and Tigris approach within some twenty miles
of each other, the Euphrates from its higher level discharging water
through canals into the Tigris, which might thus be regarded as an
offshoot of it. The land of Eden is the plain {edinu) between the two
rivers from Tekrit (on the Tigris nearly a hundred miles
: of Bagdad) N
and 'Ana (on the Euphrates) to the Persian Gulf; the garden being one
specially favoured region from the so-called isthmus to a little S of' *
Babylon. The river of v.^" is the Euphrates Pishon is the Pallakopas

;
canal, branching off from the Euphrates on the right a little above
Babylon and running nearly parallel with it to the Persian Gulf; Gihon
is the Shatt en-Nil, another canal running E of the Euphrates from
near Babylon and rejoining the parent river opposite Ur Hiddekel ;
and Euphrates are, of course, the lower courses of the Tigris and
Euphrates respectively, the "former regarded as replenished through
the canal system from the latter. Havilah is part of the great Syrian
II. II-I4 6^
desert lying W
and S of the Euphrates and Kush is a name for ;
northern and middle Babylonia, derived from the Kassite dynasty that
once ruled there. In spite of the learning and ingenuity with which
this theory has been worked out, it cannot clear itself of an air of
artificiality at variance with the simplicity of the passage it seeks to
explain. That the Euphrates should be at once the undivided Paradise-
stream and one of the heads into which it breaks up is a glaring
'
'
anomaly; while v.^'' shows that the narrator had distinctly before his
mind the upper course of the Tigris opposite Assur, and is therefore
not likely to have spoken of it as an effluent of the Euphrates. The
objection that the theory confuses rivers and canals is fairly met by the
argument that the Bab. equivalent of n-nj is used of canals, and also by
the consideration that both the canals mentioned were probably ancient
river-beds but the order in which the rivers are named tells heavily
;
against the identifications. Moreover, the expression the whole land '
of Havilah seems to imply a much larger tract of the earth's surface

'
than the small section of desert enclosed by the Pallakopas and to ;
speak of the whole of northern Babylonia as * surrounded by the '
Shalt en-Nil is an abuse of language. According to Sayce [HCM, —

95 ff. ; DB, i. 643 f. ), the garden of Eden
is the sacred garden of Ea
at Eridu and the river which waters it is the Persian Gulf, on the
;
shore of which Eridu formerly stood. The four branches are, in

addition to Euphrates and Tigris (which in ancient times entered the
Gulf separately), the Pallakopas and the Choaspes (now the Kerkha),
the sacred river of the Persians, from whose waters alone their kings
were allowed to drink (Her. 188). Besides the difficulty of supposing
i.
that the writer of v.^*^ meant to trace the streams upwards towards their
source above the garden, the theory does not account for the order in
which the rivers are given for the Pallakopas is ; of Euphrates, W
while the Choaspes is E of the Tigris.* Further, although the de-
scription of the Persian Gulf as a 'river' is fully justified by its Bab.
designation as N&r Marratum ('Bitter River'), it has yet to be made
probable that either Babylonians or Israelites would have thought of a
garde» as watered by 'bitter' (i.e. salt) water. These objections apply —
with equal force to the theory of Hommel {AA, iii. i, p. 281 tf., etc.,
AHTy 314 ff.), who agrees with Sayce in placing Paradise at Eridu, in
making the single stream the Persian Gulf, and one of the four branches
the Euphrates. But the three other branches, Pishon, Gihon, and
Hiddekel, he identifies with three Arabian wadis, W. Dawasir,N —
W. Rumma, and W. SirhSn (the Ixst the wadi of X^WCish' = }}ad-dekel '
[see on v." above], the name having been afterwards transferred to the
Tigris).
2. Since none of the above theories furnishes a satisfactory solution
of the problem, we may as well go back to what appears the natural
*
This objection is avoided by the modified theory of Dawson, who
Pishon with the Karun, still further E than the Kerkha. But
identifies
that removes it from all connexion with Havilah, which is one of the
recommendations of Sayce's view.
— ;
64 THE SITE OF PARADISE
interpretation of v.^**, and take along with it the Utopian conception of

four great rivers issuing from a single source. The site of Paradise
is then determined by the imaginary common source of the two known
rivers, Euphrates and Tigris. As a matter of fact, the western arm of

the Euphrates and the eastern arm of the Tigris do rise sufficiently
near each other to make the supposition of a common source possible
to ancient cosmography and there is no difficulty in believing that
;
the passage locates the garden in the unexplored mountains of Armenia.

The difficulty is to find the Pishon and the Gihon. To seek them
amongst the smaller rivers of Armenia and Trans-Caucasia is a
hopeless quest for a knowledge of these rivers would imply a know-
;
ledge of the country, which must have dispelled the notion of a common
source. Van Doorninck has suggested the Leontes and Orontes
{ThT, xxxix. 236), but a Hebrew writer must surely have known that
these rivers rose much nearer home than the Euphrates and Tigris.
There is more to be said for the opinion that they represent the two
great Indian rivers, Ganges and Indus, whose sources must have been
even more mysterious than those of the Euphrates and Tigris, and
might very well be supposed to lie in the unknown region from Armenia
to Turkestan.* The attraction of this view is that it embraces all
rivers of the first magnitude that can have been known in western
Asia (for, as we shall see, even the Nile is not absolutely excluded)
and no valid objection to say that the Indian rivers were beyond
it is
the horizon of the Israelites, since we do not know from what quarter
the myth had travelled before it reached Palestine. Yet I find no
modern writer of note who accepts the theory in its completeness.
De. and Di. identify the Pishon with the Indus, but follow the tradi-
tional identification of Gihon with the Nile (see p. 61 above). But if
the biblical narrator believed the Nile to rise with Euphrates and
Tigris, it is extremely likely that he regarded its upper waters as the
Indus, as Alexander the Great did in his time f and we might then ;
fall back on the old identification of Pishon with the Ganges.^ But it
must be admitted that the names Havilah and Kush are a serious
— — —— «
* Strabo reports the belief of the ancients that Indian rivers all
rise in the Caucasus (xv. i. 13). The fact that in mediaeval Arabian
geographers (êi}}un is a proper name of the Oxus and the Cilician
Pyramus, and an appellative of the Araxes and the Ganges, might
seem at first sight to have a bearing on the question at issue but its ;
importance is discounted by the possibility that the usage is based on

this passage, due to Jewish and Christian influences in the Middle
Ages.
t From the presence in both of crocodiles Arrian, Anah. vi. i, 2f.
: ;
cf. Strabo, xv. i. 25, and the similar notion about the Nile and
Euphrates in Pausanias, ii. 5. 2.
+ Josephus and most of the Fathers. Strangely enough, there
seems to be no suggestion of the Indus earlier than Kosmas Indico-
pleustes (ii. 131). Is this because the identity of Nile and Indus was
a fixed idea ?
;
II. II-I4 65
difficulty to this class of theories. The latter, indeed, may retain its
usual OT
meaning- if Gihon be the upper Nile, either as a continu-
ation of the Indus or a separate river but if it be the Indus alone, Kush
;
must be the country of the Kassites, conceived as extending indefinitely

E of Babylonia. Havilah has to be taken as a name for India con-
sidered as an extension of NE Arabia, an interpretation which finds
no support in the OT. At the same time, as Di. observes, the language
employed (* the whole land of H.') sug-g-ests some more spacious region
than a limited district of Arabia and from the nature of the passage
;
we can have no certainty that the word is connected with the Havilah
of Gn. lo. —
An interesting- and independent theory, based on ancient
Babylonian g-eographical documents, has been propounded by Haupt.
The common source of the four rivers is supposed to have been a
large (imaginary) basin of water in N Mesopotamia the Euphrates :
and Tigris lose themselves in marshes the Pishon (suggested by the ;
Kerkha) is conceived as continued in the N&r Marrattim (Persian Gulf)

and the Red Sea, and so encompasses the whole of Havilah (Arabia)
* '
beyond this there was supposed to be land, through which the Gihon
(suggested by the Karun) was supposed to reach Kush (Ethiopia),
whence it flowed northwards as the Nile. The theory perhaps com-
bines more of the biblical data in an intelligible way than any other
that has been proposed and it seems to agree with those just con-
;
sidered in placing the site of Eden at the common source of the rivers,
to the N
of Mesopotamia.*
3. seems probable that the resources of philology and scientific
It
geography are well-nigh exhausted by theories such as have been
described above, and that further advance towards a solution of the
problem of Paradise will be along the line of comparative n^ythology.
Discussions precisely similar to those we have examined are maintained
with regard to the Iranian cosmography whether, e.g.^ the stream —
Ranha be the Oxus or the Yaxartes or the Indus the truth being that ;
Ranha is a mythical celestial stream, for which various earthly

equivalents might be named (see Tiele, Gesch. d. Rel. ii. 291 f.). If
we knew more of the diffusion and history of cosmological ideas in
ancient religions, we
should probably find additional reason to believe
that Gn. but one of many attempts to localise on earth a
2"^"^* is
representation which is essentially mythical. Gu. (^33, ^31), adopting

a suggestion of Stucken, supposes the original Paradise to have been
at the North pole of the heavens (the summit of the mountain of the
gods cf. Ezk. 28^'*), and the river to be the Milky Way, branching
:
— —
out [but does it?] into four arms (there is some indication that
the two arms between Scorpio and Capricornus were regarded in
Babylonia as the heavenly counterparts of Euphrates and Tigris see :
KAT^, 528). It is not meant, of course, that this was the idea in
the mind of the biblical writer, but only that the conception of the
mysterious river of Paradise with its four branches originated in
mythological speculation of this kind. If this be the case, we need not
* The summary is taken from Dri. p. 595. ; the original article, in

Ueber Land und Meer, 1894-95, ^ have not been able to consult.
5
be surprised if it should prove impossible to identify Pishon and Gibon

with any known rivers on the other hand, the mention of the well-
:
known Tigris and Euphrates clearly shows that the form of the myth
preserved in Gn. 2^*'"^* located the earthly Paradise in the unknown
northerly region whence these rivers flowed. And the conclusion is
almost inevitable that the myth took shape in a land watered by these
—
two rivers, in Babylonia or Mesopotamia (see Gressmann, ARW, x.
346 f.).
15. to till it and to guard it] To reject this clause (Bu.),

or the second member (Di.), as inconsistent with 3^^^-
are arbitrary expedients. The ideal existence for man is
not idle enjoyment, but easy and pleasant work; **the

highest aspiration of the Eastern peasant" (Gu.) being to
keep a garden. The question from what the garden had
to be protected isone that should not be pressed. 16 f. The —
belief that man lived originally on the natural fruit of trees
(observe the difference from i^^) was widespread in antiquity,
and appears in Phoenician mythology.* Here, however, the

point lies rather in the restriction than the permission, — in
the imposition of a taboo on one particular tree. For the —

words of the knowledge of good and evil it has been proposed
to substitute "which is in the midst of the garden" (as 3^),
on the ground that the revelation of the mysterious property
of the tree was the essence of the serpent's temptation and
must not be anticipated (3^) (Bu. Ho. Gu. al.). But the
narrative ought not to be subjected to such rigorous logical
^^ after the insertion of ^"^*,

15. The V. is either a resumption of
or a duplicate from a parallel document. It is too original to be a
gloss and since there was no motive for making an interpolation at
;
8^, the excision of ^*'"^^ seems to lead necessarily to the conclusion
—
that two sources have been combined. DiN.mN] ffi + Sj* iirXaa-ev (as
v.^). —
inn'ri] On the two Hiphils of mj and their distinction in meaning,
—
see G-K. § 72 ee, and the Lexx. pj/] fflt^ and most cursives render rrji
Tpv<i>ri$ <&^ and uncials omit the word.—'ui ni^y'?] Since \i is nowhere
:
fem., it is better to point niDtfVi ri-^-yv^ (see Albrecht, ZATW, xvi. 53).—
16. DiNn] fflt 'A5a/i, ei. F
Except in v.^^ the word is regularly, but
wrongly, treated as nom. pr. by these two Vns. from this point
—
onwards. 17. riDn mo] S. Qvi]Th<i ^cttj. In fflc the vbs. of this v. are all
pi. (as 3*- *).
* Eus. Prcep. Ev, i. 10 (from Philo Byblius) : evpelv 5k rbv kldva T^r
i.Trb tCov devSpufv rpocpi^v.
— — — ;
n. 15-19 67
tests ; and, after all, there still remained something for the
serpent to disclose, viz. that such knowledge put man on
an equality with God. in the day . . . die\ The threat was
not fulfilled ; but its force is not to be weakened by such
considerations as that man from that time became mortal
(Jer. al.), or that he entered on the experience of miseries
and hardships which are the prelude of dissolution (Calv.
al.). The simple explanation is that God, having regard to
the circumstances of the temptation, changed His purpose
and modified the penalty.
18-25. Creation of animals and woman. The Creator, —
taking pity on the solitude of the man, resolves to provide
him with a suitable companion. The naivete of the con-
ception is extraordinary. Not only did man exist before the
beasts, but the whole animal creation is the result of an
unsuccessful experiment to find a mate for him. Of the
revolting idea that man lived for a time in sexual inter-
course with the beasts (see p. 91), there is not a trace.
18. a helper] The writer seems to be thinking (as in 2^),
not of the original, but of the present familiar conditions of
human life.
— *i"^^?3] (only here) lit. *as in front of him,' i.e,
corresponding The meaning cannot be that the

to him. — 19.
animals had already been created, and are now brought to
be named (Calv. al. and recently De. Str.) such a sense :
is excluded by grammar (see Dri. T. § 76, Obs.)^ and misses
the point of the passage. to see what he would call it] To

watch its eff"ect on him, and (eventually) to see if he would
recognise in it the associate he needed, as one watches —
18. ncyN] May be cohort. (G-K. § 75 /) ; (KF render as ist p. pi. (as
i^). — ^l];] (usually succour ')=* helper'
* {ahstr. pro concr.) is used else-
where chiefly of God (Dt. 33'- ^^ Ps. 33-° 115^^- etc.) ; possible exceptions
are Ezk. 12^^ (if text right), Ho. 13'' (if em. with We.): see BDB.— njaa]
ffir /car avrbv (but v.^*^ Sôtos avrQ) ; Aq. ws KarivaPTi avToD ; S. dvTiKpvs
aiiTov ; U similis sibi {ejus, v.Ô) ; S> CTlZoD | ; Qt^ n''?3'p3. — 19. ;uu.® ins.
niy after D'n'?N. — Omission of tin before n'n-'?3 is remarkable in this ch.
(see v.^), and is rectified by txx.
on n'n tysa] The only construction —
possiblewould be to take 'h as dat. eth., and 'n '3 as direct obj. to Nnp'
but that is contrary to the writer's usage, and yields a jejune sense.
Even if (with Ra. we transpose and read every living thing which the
)
'
man called [by a name], that was its name,' the discord of gender would
— —
the effect of a new experience on a little child. whatever

the man should call name] The spon-
it, that (was to be) its
taneous ejaculation of the first man becomes to his posterity

a name such is the origin of (Hebrew) names. The words
: —
n'H L"D3 are incapable of construction, and are to be omitted
as an explanatory gloss (Ew. al.). 20. The classification —

of animals is carried a step further than in ^^ (domestic and
wild animals being distinguished), but is still simpler than
inch. I. Fishes and 'creeping things ' are frankly omitted
21. It has appeared that
as inappropriate to the situation. —
no fresh creation from the ground can provide a fit com-
'
'
panion for man from his own body, therefore, must his
:
future associate be taken. — HD'l'iri] is a hypnotic trance,

induced by supernatural agency (cf. Duhm on Is. 29^^).
The purpose here is to produce anaesthesia, with perhaps

the additional idea that the divine working cannot take
place under human observation (Di. Gu.). one of his ribs\
A part of his frame that (it was thought) could easily be

spared. There is doubtless a deeper significance in the
representation: it suggests "the moral and social relation
of the sexes to each other, the dependence of woman upon
man, her close relationship to him, and the foundation
existing in nature for the feelings with which each. . .
should naturally regard the other" (Dri.). The Arabs use

similarly a word for rib,' saying hUa lizkl or hUa bilizkl for
'
'
he is my bosom companion.' On the other hand, the notion
that the first human being w as androgyn ous, arid^fterw^xds
separated into man and woman (see Schw. ARW^ ix. 172 ff.),
finds no countenance in the passage. —22. built up the rib
be fatal, to say nothing- of the addition of db'.— 20. flij;*?!] Rd. with MSS
—
ffirU^^ qiy-'^^D'?! (Ba. ). D"3N^^] Here the Mass. takes Adam as a proper
name. De. al. explain it as generic = for a human being' (Gu.); Ols. '
emends DnNm. The truth is that the Mass. loses no opportunity pre-
sented by the Kethib of treating Dnx as n. pr. Point d^n^]. NîD n*?] Tu. —
al. take God as subj. but it may be pass, expressed by indef. subj.
;
(G-K. § 144 f/, e) = there was not found.' 21. no-nn] ffi ^Karaaw Aq.
*
— \
Karacpopdv ; S. Kdpov ; ^ (.>— ^j> ('tranquillity'); "B sopor; JE^ and some
Gr. Vns. (Field) have 'sleep' simply. The examples of its use (15*'',
I Sa. 26^^ Is. 29^", Jb. 4^2 33^^ Pr. i9''t)> all except the last, confirm
— — —
II. 20— 23 69
. . . into a woman] So in the Egyptian **Tale of the two

brothers," the god Chnum 'built' a wife for his favourite
Batau, the hieroglyphic determinative showing that the
operation was actually likened to the building of a wall
(see Wiedemann, DB, Sup. 180). 23. By a flash of intu- —
ition the man divines that the fair creature now brought to
him is part of himself, and names her accordingly. There
isa poetic ring and rhythm in the exclamation that breaks
from him. T/ii's at tast] Lit. 'This, this time' [v.z.): note
the thrice repeated DXT. bone of my bones^ etc.] The expres-
sions originate in the primitive notion of kinship as resting
on ''participation in a common mass of flesh, blood, and
bones" (Rob. Sm. RS^, 273 f. cf. KM^y i75 f-)' so that
:
all the members of a kindred group are parts of the same

substance, whether acquired by heredity or assimilated in
the processes of nourishment (cf. 29^* 37^^, Ju. 9^, 2 Sa. 5^
19^^). The case before us, where the material identity is
expressed in the manner of woman's creation, is unique.

shall be called Wo?nan] English is fortunate in being able
to reproduce this assonance ('/i, Îssa) without straining
language : other translations are driven to tours de force
Duhm's view that hypnotic sleep is indicated. It is true that in the

vb. (Niph.) that sense is less marked. — 23. cyan n»sM] The construction
rendered above takes nxM as subj. of the sent, and 0^2.1= 'this time,' the
art. having- full demonstrative force, as in 2^^^- 30^° 46^°, Ex. (f^ (so (&.
SOU; De. Di. Gu. al.). The accents, however, unite the words
in one phrase 'this time,' after the rather important analogy of ntoyS) n»
(27^^ 43I"), leaving the subj. unexpressed. This sense is followed by
SQT^J, and advocated by Sta. {ZATW, xvii. 2ioff.); but it seems less
—
acceptable than the other. t^'x, -i^JS] The old derivation of these words
from a common fj e'jn is generally abandoned, iff'H being assigned to a
hypothetical ^J »'?«=' be strong' (Ges. Th.). Ar. and Aram., indeed,
show quite clearly that the ^ seen in the pi. DT:^{ (and in tûx) and
that of HK'N (nv'4J<) are only apparently identical, the one having 5 where
the other has /. The masc. and fem. are therefore etymologically
distinct, and nothing remains but a very strong assonance. The
question whether we are to postulate a third ^ for the sing. i^'N does
not greatly concern us here the arguments will be found in BDB, s.v.
;
See No. ZDMG^ xl. 740 (" Aber i^'n mochte ich doch bei m^ lassen").
In imitation of the assonance, 2. has &v5pis, Virago. U
0. XtJxI/ls, re-
presents NB'N, I will take
*
a curious blunder which is fully elucidated by
'
:
— ;
JO PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
(e.g. Jer. Virago ; Luther, Mdnnin). Whether even in Heb.

it is more than an assonance is doubtful [v.i.). —24. An
setiological observation of the narrator : This is why a man
leaves . . . and cleaves . . . and they become^ etc.\ It is
not a prophecy from the standpoint of the narrative; nor

a recommendation of monogamic marriage (as applied in
Mt. 19^^-, Mk. lo^^-, I Co. 6^^ Eph. 5^^) ; it is an answer
to the question, What is the meaning of that universal
instinct vi^hich impels aman to separate from his parents
and cling to his wife ? It is strange that the man's attach-
ment to the woman is explained here, and the woman's to
the man only in 3^^.
It has been imagined that the v. presupposes the primitive custom

called heena marriage, or that modification of it in which the husband
parts from his own kindred for good, and goes to live with his wife's
kin (so Gu. cf. KM'^, 87, 207)
: and other instances are alleged in the
;
patriarchal history. But this would imply an almost incredible antiquity

for the present form of the narrative and, moreover, the dominion of the ;
man over the wife assumed in s^^** is inconsistent with the conditions of
heena marriage. Cf. Benz. EB, 2675: "The phrase . may be an . .
old saying dating from remote times when the husband went to the
house (tent) of the wife and joined her clan. Still the passage may be
merely the narrator's remark and even if it should be an old proverb
;
we cannot be sure that it really carries us so far back in antiquity."

See, however, Gressmann, ARW, x. 353^ van Doorninck, ThT^ xxxix. ;
238 (who assigns z^ and 3^^ to different recensions).
view just mentioned could be maintained,

onefles}{\ If the
this phrase might be equivalent to one clan (Lv. 25*^) ' '
for ''both in Hebrew and Arabic flesh is synonymous *

'
with clan*
or kindred group " {R^, 274). More probably
'
it refers simply to the connuhitnn. 25. naked not — . . .
ashamed] The remark is not merely an anticipation of the
the quotation from Origen given in Field, p. i^^^.—Yov b"nd, axx(&W^ read
riv'^ND, which is by no means an improvement.— riNrnnf;^^] See G-K. §§ 10 A,
20 c. — 24. vni] Add Dn'i?' with ffiU^STJ and NT citations. tjx has
D.TJB'D rrm, referring to the offspring.—^5. D'sn;;] oni/ • naked,' to be care-
fully distinguished from ony (v^cv) 'crafty,' in 3^ is either a by-form
of QTy {sj niy='be bare') in 3^°*-, or (more probably) a different forma-
tion from my ('be bare'). See BOB, s.vv.—^tffv;1T\^] The Hithpal.
^
(only here) probably expresses reciprocity (' ashamed before one
another ') ; the impf. is frequentative.
:; .
II. 24-III. I 71
account given later of the origin of clothing î).

(3^, cf. It
between the original and the

calls attention to the difference
actual condition of man as conceived by the writer. The
c onsciousness of sex is the result of eating the tree ; before
then our first parents had the innocence of children, who are
often seen naked in the East (Doughty, ADy ii.
475).
V.^ is a transition verse, leading over to the main theme to which all
that goes before but the prelude. How long the state of primitive
is
innocence lasted, the writer is at no pains to inform us. This indiffer-

ence to the non-essential is as characteristic of the popular tale as its
graphic wealth of detail in features of real interest. The omission
afforded an opportunity for the exercise of later Midrashic ingenuity
yw6. iii. 15 fixes the period at seven years, while R. Eliezer {Ber. J?.)
finds that it did not last six hours.
III. 1-7. The temptation. — Attention is at once

directed to the quarter where the possibility of evil already
lurked amidst the happiness of Eden —the preternatural
subtlety of the serpent : But the serpent was wily] The
wisdom of the serpent was proverbial in antiquity (Mt. lo^^
see Bochart, Hieroz. iii. 246 fF.), a belief probably founded
lesson observation of the creature's actual qualities than on
the general idea of its divine or demonic nature Trvcv/Aari- :
KwTaTov yap to ^(oov iravToiv tcov ipTreriov (Sanchuniathon, in Eus.

PrcBp. Ev. Hence the epithet Dîy might be used of
i. 10).
it sensu bono though the context here makes it

(</)poVt/Aos),
certain that the bad sense (Travovpyos) is intended (see below).

— beyond any beasty etc.] The serpent, therefore, belongs to
the category of *
field,' and is a creature of
beasts of the
Yahwe ; and an seems to be made to maintain this
effort
view throughout the narrative (v.^*). At the same time it
is a being possessing supernatural knowledge, with the
power of speech, and animated by hostility towards God.

It is this last feature which causes some perplexity. To say
that the thoughts which it instils into the mind of the woman
were on the serpent's part not evil, but only extremely
sagacious, and became sin first in the human consciousness
(so Merx, Di. al.), is hardly in accordance with the spirit of
the narrative. It is more probable that behind the sober
description of the serpent as a mere creature of Yahwe,

there was an earlier form of the legend in which he figured as

a god or a demon.
The ascription of supernatural characters to the serpent presents

even to the modern mind. The marvellous agility of the
little difficulty
snake, in spite of the absence of visible motor organs, its stealthy move-
ments, its rapid death-dealing stroke, and its mysterious power of
fascinating other animals and even men, sufficiently account for the
superstitious regard of which it has been the object amongst all peoples.*
Accordingly, among the Arabs every snake is the abode of a spirit,
sometimes bad and sometimes good, so that gdnn and gul and even
Shaitdn are given as designations of the serpent (We. Heid. 152 f. of. ;
Rob. Sm. RS^^ 120^, 129 f., 442). t What is more surprising to us is the
fact that in the sphere of religion the serpent was usually worshipped as
a good demon. Traces of this conception can be detected in the narrative
before us. The demonic character of the serpent appears in his posses-
sion of occult divine knowledge of the properties of the tree in the
middle of the garden, and in his use of that knowledge to seduce man
from his allegiance to his Creator. The enmity between the race of
men and the race of serpents is explained as a punishment for his
successful temptation originally he must have been represented as a
;
being hostile, indeed, to God, but friendly to the woman, who tells her
the truth which the Deity withheld from man (see Gres. I.e. 357). All
this belongs to the background of heathen mythology from which the
materials of the narrative were drawn and it is the incomplete elimina-
;
tion of the mythological element, under the influence of a monotheistic

and ethical religion, which makes the function of the serpent in Gn. 3
so difficult to understand. In later Jewish theology the difficulty was
* Comp. the interesting sequel to the sentence from Sanchuniathon

quoted above : . koX
. . irvp^des vir' avrov vapedddr] Trap 8 Kal t&xos dvvirip-
^XrjTOP 5ia ToO TTj/ei^/uaros iraplarria-i, X^P'-^ iroSQv re Kal x^'-P'^^t ^ &'>0<ov rivbs
TLJU 'iôidev, i^ cSv rd, \onra ^wa rds kiv7)<T€LS iroLeirai' Kal voikLXuiv (TX^Mtwi'
TVTTovs dTroreXei, Kal Kara tt]v Tropeiav eXi-KoeiSeis ^x" '''^^ op/ncLi, ^0'8 ôvXerai
T&xos' Kal TToXvxpoviuTaTov de iarLV, ov fxbvov rip iKSvSfievov t6 yrjpas vedêiv,
dXXd Kal aij^rjaiv iirid^x^'^^'^'- fJ'^'i-ôva iri(j)VKe Aib Kal iv lepois tovto t6
. . .
j^'Coop Kal €v fiva-Trjpiois avfiirapeiXTjiTTai ktX. (Orelli, p. 44).
t Cf No. ZVP^ i. 413: "Das geheimnissvolle, damonische Wesen

der Schlange, das sie vor alien grosseren Thieren auszeichnet, die
tiickische, verderbenbringende Natur vieler Arten, konnte in dem
einfachen semitischen Hirten leicht den Glauben erzeugen, in ihr wohne
etwas Gottliches, den Menschen Bannendes und Bezauberndes. So
finden wir die Schlange im Eingang des alten Testaments, so ist sie im
Alterthum, wie noch jetzt, ein Hauptgegenstand orientalischer Zauberei.
So glaubte auch der Araber, die Schlange (wie einige andere schadliche
Thiere) sei kein gewohnliches Geschopf, sondern ein Dschinn, ein Geist.
Schon die Sprache driickt dies dadurch aus, dass sie mit Dzdnn, einem
Worte welches mit Dziti?i eng verwandt ist, eine Schlangenart bezeich-
net, etc."
—— —
—
III. I
73
solved, as is well known, by the doctrine that the serpent of Eden was
the mouthpiece or im person ation of th e deviL The idea appears first in
Alexandrian Judaism Wisd. 2^ ('by the envy of the devil, death
in
entered into the world'): possibly earlier is the allusion in En. Ixix. 6,
where the seduction of Eve is ascribed to a Satan called Gadreel. Cf.
Secrets of En. xxxi. 3fF., Ps. Sol. 4^; also Ber. R. 29, the name t^nj
'Jb-j,^n {Sifri 138 b), and in the NT Jn. 8''^ 2 Co. ii^, Ro. 1620, Ap. i2»
20^ (see Whitehouse, DB, iv. 408 If.). Similarly in Persian mythology
the serpent Dahika, to whose power Yima, the ruler of the golden age,
succumbs, is a creature and incarnation of the evil spirit Angro-Mainyo
( Vend. i. 8,
xxii. 5, 6, 24 Ya^na ix. 27 cf. Di. 70).
; The Jewish and
;
Christian doctrine is a natural and legitimate extension of the teaching

of Gn. 3, when the problem of evil came to be apprehended in its real
magnitude but it is foreign to the thought of the writer, although it
;
cannot be denied that it may have some affinity with the mythological
background of his narrative. The religious teaching of the passage
knows nothing of an evil principle external to the serpent, but regards
himself as the subject of whatever occult powers he displays he is simply :
a creature ofYahwe distinguished from the rest by his superior subtlety.

The Yahwistic author does not speculate on the ultimate origin of evil ;
it was enough for his purpose to have so analysed the process of temp-
tation that the beginning of sin could be assigned to a source which

is neither in the nature of man nor in God. The personality of the
Satan (the Adversary) does not appear in the OT till after the Exile
(Zee. Jb. Ch.).
The serpent shows his subtlety by addressing his first

temptation to the more mobile temperament of the woman
(Ra. al.), and by the skilful innuendo with which he at once
invites conversation and masks his ultimate design. Ay^
and so God has said^ etc. !\ Something like this seems to be
the force of "'3 ^jX {v.u). It is a half-interrogative, half-
reflective exclamation, as if the serpent had brooded long
over the paradox, and had been driven to an unwelcome
conclusion. Ye shall not eat of any tree\ The range of the
prohibition is purposely exaggerated in order to provoke
inquiry and criticism. The use of the name Q^^^^l is
I. n'H cmm] The usual order of words when a new subject is intro-
duced, G-K. § 142 (f; Dav. § 105.— ony] (ppoviixdrraTo^, Aq. ©. vavovpyos,
ffi^
S. iravovpydTepos, U callidior. The good sense (which appears to be

secondary, cf. Ar. 'arama='he ill-natured') is confined to Prov. else- ;
where (Jb. 5^2 j^5j means 'crafty,' 'wily.' The same distinction is
j(-
observed in all forms of the /J except that in Jb. 5^^ DTy has the good
sense. The resemblance to D'Dny in 2^ is perhaps accidental. tdn'i
(J&^ + B'njn. t^h] as a compound part, generally means 'much more
":>
— —
commonly explained by the analogy of other passages of

J, where the name n)r\'^ is
avoided in conversation with
heathen (39^ etc.), or when the contrast between the divine
and the human is reflected upon (322^). But J's usage in
such cases is not uniform, and it is doubtful what is the true

explanation here (see p. 53). — 2, 3. The woman's first
experience of falsehood leads to an eager repudiation of the

serpent's intentional calumny, in which she emphasises the
generosity of the divine rule, but unconsciously intensifies
the stringency of the prohibition by adding the words : nor
shall ye touch it\ A Jewish legend says that the serpent
took advantage of this innocent and immaterial variation
by forcing her to touch the fruit, and then arguing that as
death had not followed the touch, so it would not follow the
eating (Ber. 7?., Ra.). Equally futile inferences have been
drawn by modern comm., and the surmise that the clause
is redactional (Bu. Urg. 241) is hypercritical. the tree , . .
midst] See p. 66 f. — 4. Ve shall assuredly not die] On the

syntax, v.i. The serpent thus advances to an open
challenge of the divine veracity, and thence to the imputa-
tion of an unworthy motive for the command, viz. a jealous
fear on God's part lest they should become His equals.
(or less),' *not to mention,' etc., as in i Sa. 14^, i Ki. 8% Pr. iiî etc.
In some cases the simple f]N has this sense, and the o (=* when,* *if')
introduces the following- clause (i Sa. 23^ 2 Sa. 4^°'- etc.). It would be
easy to retain this sense in v.^ (* How much more when God has said,'
etc.), if we might assume with many comm. that some previous conver-
sation had taken place but that is an unwarrantable assumption.
; The
rendering on which Dri. (BDB) bases the ordinary meaning- of "3 r\H —
'
Tts indeed that
'
'
—
requires but a slight interrogative inflexion of the
voice to yield the shade of meaning given above So it is the case that
:
*
God,' etc.? The Vns. all express a question ffi tI 6ti, Aq. firjSri, S. irpbs
:
tI, U cur, S A_i1t-.j-», QDO »<t3t:'iP3 (=* really '?). —'?3D N^]='not of . . .
any* : 1526.— 2. nDD] (5 ^sp, S> '?3n£3D.— 3. n£5m] Not 'concerning

G-K. §
the tree.' There is an anakolouthon at D\n'?N nON, and the emphatically
—
placed nsD is resumed by i:dd. fyn] jom + njn. pnon] On the ending-, see —
—
G-K. §§ 47 w, 72 u. 4. pncn mo n*?] On the unusual order, see Dav. § 86 {h) ;
G-K. § 113 V. It is often explained as a negation of the threat in 2",

adopting the same form of words but the phrase had not been used
;
by the woman, and the exact words are 7iot repeated. More probably
its effect is to concentrate the emphasis on the neg-. part, rather than on
— — — —
III. 2-6 75
5. But etc.] And

God knowethy therefore has falsely
threatened you with death. The gratuitous insinuation
reveals the main purpose of the tempter, to sow the seeds
of distrust towards God in the mind of the woman, —your
eyes shall he opened] The expression denotes a sudden
acquisition of new powers of perception through super-
natural influence (21^^, Nu. 22^^, 2 Ki. 6^^). as gods] or
'divine beings,' rather than as God': the rendering as
* *
angels' (lEz.) expresses the idea with substantial accuracy.

The likeness to divinity actually acquired is not equality
with Yahwe (see Gu. on v.^^). knowing good and evil] See
p. 95 ff.
—
"The facts are all, in the view of the narrator,
correctly statedby the serpent; he has truly represented
the mysterious virtue of the tree knowledge really confers ;
equality with God (3^2) and it is also true that death does
;
not immediately follow the act of eating. But at the same

time the serpent insinuates a certain construction of these
facts : God is envious, inasmuch as He grudges the highest
good to man :
<f>0ov€p6v to Oe7ovy an antique sentiment
familiar to us from the Greeks" (Gu.). — 6. The spiritual
part of the temptation is now accomplished, and the serpent
is silent, leaving the fascination of sense to do the rest.
The woman looks on the tree with new eyes ; she observes
how attractive to taste and sight its fruit seems, and how
desirable /or obtaining insight (so most) or to contemplate
{/'G^'^%\ so Tu. Ges.
De. Gu. al.). The second trans-
lation is the —
more suitable for how could she tell by sight
that the fruit would impart wisdom ? although the vb. is —
not elsewhere used in Heb. for mere looking {y.i.\ gave —
also to her husband] "The process in the man's case was
no doubt the same as that just described, the woman taking
the place of the serpent" (Ben.). That Adam sinned with
his eyes open in order not to be separated from his wife has
the verbal idea (cf. Am. 9^ Ps. 49^).— 5- D'n'?N3] f& ws Qeoi, %^ panana.
6. fyn^] ffiUom. — V'^B'n'?] <&. Karavo'^crai, U adspectu, and & 0T„O ;

.-..VnX
alltake the vb. as vb. of sight QT*^ .Ta N'?DnDN'? is indeterminate (see Levy,
;
Chald. Wb. 163 a). In OT the word is used of mental vision (insight, or
—
been a common idea both among- Jews and Christians (Ber.

R., Ra. lEz. Milton, etc.), but is not true to the intention
of the narrative. — 7* ^^^ ^y^^ • • • opened] The prediction
of the serpent is so far fulfilled ; but the change fills them
with guilty fear and shame. they knew that they -were naked]
The new sense of shame is spoken of as a sort of Werthur-
theil passed by the awakened intelligence on the empirical
fact of being unclothed. A connexion between sexual
shame and sin (Di.) is not suggested by the passage, and
is besides not true to experience. But to infer from this
single effect that the had aphrodisiac
forbidden fruit
properties (see Barton, SO^^ 93 fF. Gressmann, p. 356) is a ;
still greater perversion of the author's meaning he merely ;
gives this as an example of the new range of knowledge

acquired by eating of the tree. It is the kind of knowledge
which comes with maturity to all, the transition '* from —

the innocence of childhood into the knowledge which
belongs to adult age" {J^xi,).—foliage of the fig-tree] To the
question, Why fig-leaves in particular ? the natural answer
is that these, if not very suitable for the purpose, were yet
the most suitable that the flora of Palestine could suggest

(Di. Dri. Ben. al.). An allusion to the so-called fig-tree
of Paradise, a native of India (probably the plantain), is on
every ground improbable; — *'ein geradezu philisterhafter

Einfall " (Bu.). For allegorical interpretations of the fig-
leaves, see Lagarde, Mitth. i. 73 ff., who adds a very
original and fantastic one of his own.
8-I3. The inquest. — Thus far the narrative has dealt
with what may be called the natural (magical) effects of the
eating of the tree — the access of enlightenment, and the
disturbance thus introduced into the relations of the guilty
pair to each other. The ethical aspect of the offence comes
Aram, it means *to look at,' but only in Hithp. (Ithp.). On the other
view the Hiph. is intrans. (='for acquiring wisdom': Ps. 94^) rather
than caus. ( = 'to impart wisdom': Ps. 32^ etc.). Gu. considers the —
clause 'rh ['yn lomi a variant from another source. npni] (&^ + r\z'^:\. — —
•jDN'i] .ui(5 i'?DN'i.— 7. D'DTy] See on 2-^— n'?y] coll.; but some MSS and
XXX have '^y,.

— ——
III. 7-12 77
to light in their first interview with Yahwe ; and this is

delineated with a skill hardly surpassed in the account of
the temptation itself. — 8. they heard the sot(nd\ h\^ used of
footsteps, as 2 Sa. i Ki. 146, 2 Ki. 6^2; cf. Ezk. 3I2'.,
s^*,
Jl. 2^. of Yahwe God as He walked] The verb is used

(Lv. 26^2^ Dt. 23^^, 2 Sa. 7^) of Yahwe's majestic marching
in the midst of Israel ; but it mars the simplicity of the
representation if (with De.) we introduce that idea here. in
the cool (lit. '
at the breeze ') of the day\ i.e. towards evening,
when Eastern lands a refreshing wind springs up (cf.
in
Ca. but v.i.)^ and the master, who has kept his
2^^ 4^ :
house or tent during the *heat of the day' (18^), can walk
abroad with comfort (24^^). Such, we are led to understand,
was Yahwe's daily practice and the man and woman had ;
been wont to meet Him with the glad confidence of

innocence. But on this occasion they hid themselves^ etc, —
9. Where art thou?] (cf. 4^). The question expresses
ignorance; it is not omniscience that the writer wishes to
but the more impressive attribute of sagacity.

illustrate,
10. 1feared naked] With the instinctive cunning of a bad

. . .
conscience, the man hopes to escape complete exposure

by acknowledging part of the truth he alleges nakedness ;
as the ground of his fear, putting fear and shame in a false

causal connexion (Ho.). II. Hast thou eaten^ etc.?] All —
unwittingly he has disclosed his guilty secret : he has shown
himself possessed of a knowledge which could only have
been acquired in one way. 12. The man cannot even yet —
bring himself to it make a
but with 4 quaint clean breast of ;
mixture of cowardice and effrontery he throws Hhe blame
8. l'?nnD] ace. of condition: Da v. § 'jo{a).—^r\ T\rh\ (& rh deiXtvdv,

U ad auram post meridiem, B (SDQ-»5 m » 1<^\, 21° NDV moS. On
this use of ^ (=* towards'), see BDB, s.v. 6a; and cf. 8" 1721, Is.
7I'',
Jb. With nn cf. Ar. rawdk = tempus vespertinum. Jewish
24^^.
exegesis {Ber. R.) and Calv. suppose the morning (sea) breeze to be
meant, as is probably the case in Ca. 2" 4^ and would seem more in
accordance with Palestinian conditions. But it is manifestly improbable
here.— fy] coll., as often, ffi^ om.— 9. hd'n] G-K. § 100 o. (& supplies
'Adam' before, and ^ after, the interrog. 10. 'nyOB'] ffir + 7re/)t7raToi;;/To$ —
(as v.^). —
II. "'n'?^'?] See G-K. § 1145.— Before /xij (âyeiv (K has To<nov
— '
directly on the woman, and indirectly on God who gave her

to him. — 13. The woman in like manner exculpates herself
by pleading- (truly enough) that she had been deceived by
the serpent. — The whole situation is now laid bare, and
nothing remains but to pronounce sentence. No question
is put to the serpent, because his evil motive is understoo'5)
he has acted just as might have been expected of him.
Calv. says, ** the beast had no sense of sin, and the devil no
hope of pardon."
14-19. This section contains the key to the significance
of the story of the Fall. It is the first example of a
frequently recurring motive of the Genesis narratives, the
idea, viz., that the more perplexing facts in the history of
men and peoples are the working out of a doom or *
weird
pronounced of old under divine inspiration, or (as in this
case) by the Almighty Himself: see 41^ 82i«- <^^^- 1612 2727^-
39f. ^gwff.^
ch. 49; cf. Nu. 23 f., Dt. 33. Here certain fixed
adverse conditions of the universal human lot are traced
back to a primaeval curse uttered by Yahwe in consequence
of man's first transgression. See, further, p. 95 below.
The form of the oracles is poetic but the structure is ;
irregular, and no definite metrical scheme can be made

out.
15. The curse on the serpent is legible, partly
14,
in degraded form and habits (^*), and partly in the
its
deadly feud between it and the human race (^^). 14. on thy —
belly etc.] The assumption undoubtedly is that originally
y
the serpent moved erect, but not necessarily that its
organism was changed {e.g: by cutting off its legs, etc.

Rabb.). As a matter of fact most snakes have the power of
erecting a considerable part of their bodies and in mytho- ;
li^vov. —
13. nNi-no] So commonly with r^w ; with other vbs. r^vnr:, (G-K.
§i36<:;Dav. §7(f)).
14. On this use of }D { = e numero)^ see G-K. § 119 w, and cf.
hyo]
Ex. Dt. 142 3324^ ju. 524 etc.
19", Sta.'s argument {ZATW, xvii. 209) for
deleting- 1 nonan Sdd, on the ground that the serpent belongs to the cate-
gory of mtyn n^n but not to nr:in2, is logical, but hardly convincing. pna] —
Probably from ^ jnj (Aram.) = curve' or *bend' (De., BDB), occurs
*
again only Lv. 11*2^ of reptiles. ¥ renders pectus, ffi combines arrfdos
— — —
III. 13-1S 79
logical representations the serpent often appears in the

upright position (Ben.). The idea probably is that this was
its original posture : how it was maintained was perhaps
not reflected upon. dust shall Ihou eal] Cf. Mic. 7^'', Is. 65^^.
It isa prosaic explanation to say that the serpent, crawl-

ing on the ground, inadvertently swallows a good deal of
dust (Boch. Hieroz. iii. 245 Di. al.) and a mere metaphor ; ;
for humiliation (like Ass. ti-ka-lu ip-rw, KIB^ v. 232 f.) is

too weak a sense for this passage. Probably it is a piece
of ancient superstition, like the Arabian notion that the
înn eat dirt (We. Held. 150). all the days of thy life]
i.e. each serpent as long as it lives, and the race of
serpents as long as it lasts. It is not so certain as most
comm. seem to words exclude the
think that these
demonic character of the serpent. It is true that the
punishment of a morally irresponsible agent was recognised
in Hebrew jurisprudence (9^, Ex. 2i28f-, Lv. 20^^*). But it
is quite possible that here (as in v.^^) the archetypal serpent

is conceived as re-embodied in all his progeny, as acting
and suffering in each member of the species. — 15. The
serpent's attempt to establish unholy fellowship with the
woman is punished by implacable and undying enmity
between them.^ -thy seed and her seed] The whole brood of
and KoiKla. —
15. Vl]] in the sense of 'offspring-,' is nearly always col-
lective. In a few cases where it is used of an individual child (4^* 21^',
I Sa. i") it denotes the immediate offspring as the pledg-e of posterity,
never a remote descendant (see No. AJ^ W, viii. 164 ff.). The Messianic
application therefore is not justified in grammar. xm] the rendering- —
ipsa (U) is said got to be found in the Fathers before Ambrose and
Augustine (Zapletal, ATltches, 19). Jer. at all events knew that ipse
should be read. usitrn — n£3itr]
. The form qw recurs only Jb. g^"^,
. .
Ps. 139", and, in both, text and meaning are doubtful. In Aram, and
NH the sj (i"i; or y"y) has the primary sense of 'rub,' hence 'wear
down by rubbing- '= crush ; in Syr. it also means to crawl. There are
'
*
a few exx. of a tendency of V'y vbs. to strengthen themselves by

insertion of N (Kon. i. 439), and it is often supposed that in certain pass.
* " Fit enim arcano naturae sensu ut ab ipsis abhorreat homo " (Calv.).
Cf. (with Boch. Hieroz, iii. 250) " quam dudum dixeras te odisse aeque
atque angues " ^Plaut. Merc. 4) ; and ^/c -rraidbi rbv \pvxpbv 6<j>iv to. fidXiara
d^doiKa (Theoc. Id. 15).
—
8o PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
serpents, and the whole race of men. He shall bruise thee

on the heady etc.] In the first clause the subj. (&«in) is the
*
seed ' of the woman individualised (or collectively), in the
second (i^^^) it is the serpent himself, acting through his
*seed.' The current reading of U (ipsa) may have been
prompted by a feeling that the proper antithesis to the
serpent is the woman herself. The general meaning of the
sentence is clear : in the war between men and serpents
the former will crush the head of the foe, while the latter
can only wound in the heel. The difficulty is in the vb. ÎIK^,
which in the sense '

bruise ' is inappropriate to the serpent's
mode of attack. We may speak of a serpent stHking a
man a serpente)^ but hardly of bruising.
(as in Lat. feriri
Hence many comm. (following al.) take the vb. as a ^
by-form of ^Nt?' (strictly pant '), in the sense of be eager ' '
for,'*aim at' (Ges. Ew. al.) Di.âl.); while others (Gu.

suppose that by parono masia the word means bruise' in *
the first clause, and aim at in the second. But it may *

'
be questioned whether this idea is not even less suitable

than the other (Dri.). A perfectly satisfactory interpretation
cannot be given {v.i.).
»
The Messianic interpretation of the * seed of the woman appears '
in STJ and Targ. Jer., where the v. is explained of the Jewish com-
(Ezk. 36^, Am. 2^ 8^, Ps. 56" ^ ^1^) îi> is disguised under the by-form qNB'.
But the only places where the assumption is at all necessary are
Am. 2^ 8*, where the K may be simply mater lectionis for the d of the
ptcp. (cf. Dxpi, Ho. 10^'*) in the other cases the proper sense of ^'^
;
(* pant or metaph. long for ') suffices. The reverse process (substitu-
'
'
tion of fjic for INK') is much less likely and the only possible instance ;
would be Jb, 9''^, which is too uncertain to count for anything. There
isthus not much ground for supposing a confusion in this v. and De. ;
points out that vbs. of hostile endeavour^ as distinct from hostile achieve-
ment never construed with double ace. The gain
(nan, nsn, etc.), are
in sense is so doubtful that it is better to adhere to the meaning 'crush.'
The old Vns. felt the difficulty and ambiguity. The idea of crushing
^°'^'- "'^-
is represented by Aq. TrpoffTpixpei, S. 6\i\f/€i, (& TpL\//€i (see
Field) and Jer. {Qucest.) conterere 'pant after' by (^^ ^^- T-r\py\aî\{\ (if
',
not a mistake for rpy](jiL\}\ or Tet/)77(ret[s]). A double sense is given by

U conterei . . . insidiaberiSy and perhaps ,S «.J»OrJ . . . 1
>'Tt^ » ^^^ril •
while 2r° paraphrases : n'^ n»3 'nn rm ponpSo n'"? mayn no tdt kh' Kin
NS10S.
III. 15 81
munity and its victory over the devil "in the days of King Messiah."
The reference to the person of Christ was taught by Irenaeus, but was
never so generally accepted in the Church as the kindred idea that the
serpent is the instrument of Satan. Mediaeval exegetes, relying on the
ipsa of the Vulg., applied the expression directly to the Virgin Mary ;
and even Luther, while rejecting this reference, recognised an allusion

to the virgin birth of Christ In Protestant theology this view gave
way to the more reasonable view of Calvin, that the passage is a
promise of victory over the devil to mankind, united in Christ its divine
Head. That even this goes beyond the original meaning of the v. is
admitted by most modern expositors and indeed it is doubtful if, from
;
the standpoint of strict historical exegesis, the passage can be regarded

as in any sense a Protevangelium. Di. (with whom Dri. substantially
agrees) finds in the words the idea of man's vocation to ceaseless moral
warfare with the serpent-brood of sinful thoughts, and an implicit
*
'
promise of the ultimate destruction of the evil power. That interpreta-

tion, however, is open to several objections, (i) A message of hope
and encouragement in the midst of a series of curses and punishments
is not to be assumed unless it be clearly implied in the language. It
would be out of harmony with the tone not only of the Paradise story,
but of the Yahwistic sections of chs. i-ii as a whole it is not till we :
come to the patriarchal history that the '* note of promise and of hope "
is firmly struck. (2) To the mind of the narrator, the serpent is no
more a symbol of the power of evil or of temptation than he is an in-
carnation of the devil. He is himself an evil creature, perhaps a
demonic creature transmitting his demonic character to his progeny,
but there is no hint that he represents a principle of evil apart from
himself. (3) No victory is promised to either party, but only perpetual
warfare between them the order of the clauses making it specially
:
hard to suppose that the victory of man was contemplated. Di. admits
that no such assurance is expressed but finds it in the general tenor
;
of the passage " a conflict ordained by God cannot be without prospect

:
of success." But that is really to beg the whole question in dispute.

If it be said that the words, being part of the sentence on the serpent,
must mean that he is ultimately to be defeated, it may be answered
that the curse on the serpent is the enmity established between him and
the human race, and that the feud between them is simply the mani-
festation and proof of that antagonism. —
It is thus possible that in its
primary intention the oracle reflects the protest of ethical religion
against the unnatural fascination of snake-worship. It is psychologi-
cally true that the instinctive feelings which lie at the root of the worship
of serous are closely akin to the hatred and loathing which the
repulsive reptile excites in the healthy human mind and the trans- ;
formation of a once sacred animal into an object of aversion is a not

infrequent phenomenon in the history of religion (see Ores. I.e. 360).
The essence of the temptation is that the serpent-demon has tampered
with the religious instinct in man by posing as his good genius, and
insinuating distrust of the goodness of God and his punishment is to
;
find himself at eternal war with the race whom he has seduced from
6
— — ;
their allegiance to their Creator. And

very much the light in that is
which serpent-worship must have appeared to a believerin the holy and

—
righteous God of the OT. The conjecture of Gu., that originally the
*
seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent may have been
'
*
'
mythological personages (cf. ATLQP-^ 217 f.), even if confirmed by

Assyriology, would have little bearing on the thought of the biblical
narrator.
16. The doom of the woman: consisting in the

hardships incident to her sex, and social position in the
East. The pains of childbirth, and the desire which makes
her the willing slave of the man, impressed the ancient
mind as at once mysterious and unnatural ; therefore to be
accounted for by a curse imposed on woman from the
beginning. —/ will multiply^ More strictly, I
elc] * will
cause thee to have much suffering and pregnancy' (see

Dav. § 3, i?. (2)). It is, of course, not an intensification of
pain to which she is already subject that is meant. — For
^.^^l?) fflr read some word meaning * groaning' (v.t.); but to
prefer thisreading on the ground that Hebrew women
esteemed frequent pregnancy a blessing (Gu.) makes a too
general statement. It is better (with Ho.) to assume a
hendiadys :
'
the pain of thy conception ' (as in the ex-
planatory clause which follows). in pain . . . children^
The pangs of childbirth are proverbial in OT for the
extremity of human anguish (Is. 21^ 13^, Mic. 4^, Ps. 48^,
and oft. : Ex. i^^ cannot be cited to the contrary). to thy
16.'?n] Read -h^], with aju(&S.— nmN nann] So 16^" 22". On the
irreg. form of inf. abs., see G-K. § TSff-—V^^^] (3^' S^'^t [J]). (K X«57ra5
( = ^nn¥y ?)._-|nni] {Însn): miJinm (Ru. 4'^, Ho. 9II). Ols. {MBA,
1870, 380) conj. larin?, to avoid the harsh use of % <& rbv (rrevayiibv
aov probably = HJVjn îij; ('sorrow') has also been suggested (Gu.)
;
and MDiy (Di. Ho. al.). The other Vns. follow MT. aisya] mx }i3sy3 —
dR likewise repeats iv \virais. —
npwn] Probably connected with Ar.
Sauk, 'ardent desire' (Rahlfs " 'ili und M,]^," p. 71); cf. pptff, Is. 29^
Ps. 107^ Aq. avvacpeia, 2. bpfi-q. Although it recurs only 4' and Ca. 7",
it is found in NH
and should not be suspected. <& i] diroaTpocp-q aov
and Si > 1 <7^ 7 / point to the reading Tin^Ê'^, preferred by many, and
defended by Nestle {MM, 6) as a technical expression for the relation
here indicated, on the basis of fflr's text of 2 Sa. 17^. His parallel between
the return of the woman to her source (the man) and the return of the
man to his source (the ground, v.^^) is perhaps fanciful.
— — — —
III. i6, 17 S^
husband . . desire] It is quite unnecessary to give up the

rare but expressive njjirri of the Heb. for the weaker nDÊ'ri.
of ^, etc. (v.t.). It is not, however, implied that the

woman's sexual desire is stronger than the man's (Kn.
Gu.) ; the point rather is that by the instincts of her nature
she shall be bound to the hard conditions of her lot, both
the ever-recurring pains of child-bearing, and subjection to
the man. while he (on his part) shall rule over thee\
The idea of tyrannous exercise of power does not lie in the
vb. ; but it means that the woman is wholly subject to the
man, and so liable to the arbitrary treatment sanctioned by
the marriage customs of the East. It is noteworthy that
to the writer this is not the ideal relation of the sexes

(cf. 2^^- 2^). There is here certainly no trace of the matri-
archate or of polyandry (see on 2^^\
17-19. The man's sentence.— The hard, unremitting
toil of the husbandman, wringing a bare subsistence from
the grudging and intractable ground, is the standing
evidence of a divine curse, resting, not, indeed, on man
himself, but on the earth for his sake. Originally, it had
provided him with all kinds of fruit good for food, — and this
is the ideal state of things now
it yields nothing spontane-
;
ously but thorns and briars bread to eat can only be;
extorted in the sweat of the brow, and this is a curse: —

formerly man had been a gardener, now he is a fellah. It
does not appear that death itself is part of the curse. The
name death is avoided ; and the fact is referred to as part
of the natural order of things, — the inevitable *
return '
of
man ground whence he was taken. The question
to the
whether man would have lived for ever if he had not sinned
is one to which the narrative furnishes no answer (Gu.).
17. And to the man] v.i. The sentence is introduced by a

formal recital of the offence. Cursed is the ground] As
17. Point DiKî ; there is no conceivable reason why onx should be

a proper name here (cf. 2^0 321). ijdd . . . nDN*?] (&. reads roirrou ixbvov
(see v.^^) ixT] (payeXv, air' airov ^(payes. — imnyn] dSc {iv tois ^pyois crov), 2.
V read ?Ii3j;3, O. eu rrj Trapa^daei aov (^l?;;?). The phrase is characteristic
of J ; out of 22 instances in the Hex., only about 3 can be assigned
— —
exceptional fertility was ascribed to a divine blessing (27^

etc.), and exceptional barrenness to a curse (Is. 24^,
Jer. 23^^), so the relative unproductiveness of the whole

earth in comparison with man's expectations and ideals is
here regarded as the permanent effect of a curse. in suffer-

ing (bodily fatigue and mental anxiety) shall thou eat [of] ii\
See 5^^. The '

laborious work ' of the husbandman is re-
ferred to in Sir. 7^^; but this is not the prevailing feeling

of the OT; and the remark of Kno., that 'agriculture was
to the Hebrew a divine institution, but at the same time a
heavy burden," needs qualification. It is well to be re-
minded that ** ancient Israel did not live constantly in the
joy of the harvest festival " (Gu.) ; but none the less it would
be a mistake to suppose that it lived habitually in the mood
of this passage. — 18. on i^^. The
the herb of thejield] See
creation of this order of vegetation has not been recorded by
J. Are we to suppose that it comes into existence simply

in consequence of the earth's diminished productivity caused
by the curse ? It seems implied at all events that the earth
will not yield even this, except under the compulsion of
human labour (see 2^). — 19. in the sweat of thy brow, etc.] A
more expressive repetition of the thought of 1^^^. The
phrase eat bread may mean '
earn a livelihood '
(Am. 7^^),
but here it must be understood literally as the immediate

reward of man's toil. till thou return^ etc.] hardly means
more than all the days of thy life (in v.^^). It is not a
' '
threat of death as the punishment of sin, and we have no

right to say (with Di.) that vv.^^~^^ are simply an expansion
of the sentence of 2^'^. That man was by nature immortal is
not taught in this passage and since the Tree of Life in
;
V.22 belongs to another recension, there is no evidence that

the main narrative regarded even endless life as within man's
to E —
(none to P). njS^Nn] The government of direct ace. seems harsh,
but not unexampled see Jer. 36^^.
is :18. ®r omits initial i so — : U
—
Jub. mmi pp] Hos. 10^; nnm occurs nowhere else in OT. It is still
used in Syria (ârt/ar) as a general name for thistles.-- 19. nyi] {^JilV,
wadda) is Hit. \ey. of. Vll, Ezk. 44^^—00'?] ffi /i^b. lonV.
;
— ;;;
III. 18-20 85
reach. The connexion of the closing" words is rather with

2? : man was taken from the ground, and in the natural
course will return to it again. and to dust, etc.] Cf. Jb.
TO^ 34^^, Ps. 90^ 146*, Ec. 320 12^ etc. : €k yata? JSkaa-TOjV yata
TrdXtv yc'yova.
The arrangement of the clauses in "'^^ is not very natural, and the
repeated variations of the same idea have sug-g-ested the hypothesis of
textual corruption or fusion of sources. In Jub. iii. 25 the passage is
quoted in an abridged form, the line Cursed sake being immedi-*
. . . '
ately followed by 'Thorns ... to thee,' and "*' being omitted. This
is, of course, a much smoother reading, and leaves out nothing essential
but "b is guaranteed by 5^. Ho. rejects ^^^ and to avoid the repetition
of '?3« proposes nnayn instead ofnj'jDNn in Gu. is satisfied with v."^* ^'^.
as they stand, but assigns ^^*« (to (JJ), as

Dn"?) and ^^^ to another source
doublets respectively of ^"'^^ and perhaps on the whole ^^*^. This is
the most satisfactory analysis. —

The poetic structure of the vv., which
might be expected to clear up a question of this kind, is too obscure
to afford any guidance. Sievers, e.g: (II. 10 f.) finds nothing, except
in v.'^, to distinguish the rhythm from that of the narrative in which
it is embedded, and all attempts at strophic arrangement are only
tentative.
20-24. The expulsion from Eden.—20. The naming

of the woman can hardly have come in between the sentence
and its execution, or before there was any experience of
motherhood to suggest it. The attempts to connect the
notice with the mention of child-bearing- in ^^^- (De. al.), or
20. nin] (S Eua [E£!a] (in 4^), Aq. Ada, U Heva, Jer. Eva (Eng. Eve)
in this v. ffir translates ZwtJ, S. ZcaoySvos. The similarity of the name
to the Aram, word for 'serpent' Syr. |_»GLk»^ Syro-Pal. JQjvj
('.5n, K;in,
[Mt. cf. Ar. hayyat from hauyat [No.]) has always been noticed,
7^**]) ;
and is accepted by several modern scholars as a real etymological

equivalence (No. ZDMG, xlii. 487; Sta. GVI, 633; We. Heid. 154). i.
The ancient idea was that Eve was so named because she had done
the serpent's work in tempting Adam {Ber. R. Philo, De agr. Noe, ;
21.; Clem. Alex. Protrept. ii. 12. i). Quite recently the philological
equation has acquired fresh significance from the discovery of the name
mn on a leaden Punic tahella devotionis (described by Lidz. Ephemeris,
i. 26 ff. ; see Cooke, NSI, 135), of which the first line reads '*0 Lady :
HVT, goddess, queen !" Lidz. sees in this mythological per-

. . .
sonage a goddess of the under-world, and as such a serpent-deity

and identifies her with the biblical Havvah. Havvah would thus be
a depotentiated deity, whose prototype was a Phoenician goddess of
*
'
the Under-world, worshipped in the form of a serpent, and bearing the

—
S6 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
with the thought of mortality in ^^ (Kn.), are forced. The

most suitable position in the present text would be before
(so /ub. iii. 33) or after 4^ and accordingly some regard
;
it as a misplaced gloss in explanation of that v. But when

we consider (a) that the name Havvah must in any case be
traditional, [b) that it is a proper name, whereas CJÎ^
remains appellative throughout, and (c) that in the follow-
ing vv. there are unambiguous traces of a second recension
of the Paradise story, it is reasonable to suppose that v.^®
comes from that recension, and is a parallel to the naming

of the woman in 2^^, whether it stands here in the original
order or not. The name Eve has been pre-
fact that the
served, while there no distinctive name for the man,
is
suggests that nin is a survival from a more primitive theory

of human origins in which the first mother represented the
unity of the race. the mother of every living thing] Accord-
ing to this derivation, Hjn would seem to denote first the
idea of life, and then the source of life the mother.* But —
title of 'Mother of all living' (see Gres. Lc. 359 f.)- Precarious as
such combinations may seem, there is no objection in principle to an
explanation of the name Havvah on these lines. Besides the Hivvites
of the OT (who were probably a serpent-tribe), We. cites examples of
Semitic princely families that traced their genealogy back to a serpent.
The substitution of human for animal ancestry, and the transference
of the animal name to the human ancestor, are phenomena frequently
observed in the transition from a lower to a higher stage of religion.
If the change took place while a law of female descent still prevailed,
the ancestry would naturally be traced to a woman (or goddess) ; and
when the law of male kinship was introduced she would as naturally
be identified with the wife of the first man. It need hardly be said that
all this, while possibly throwing some light on the mythical background
of the biblical narrative, is quite apart from the religious significance
of the story of the Fall in itself. —
'n-^D dn] Rob. Sm. renders 'mother of
—
every hayy,' }}ayy being the Arab, word which originally denoted a
group of female kinship. Thus "Eve is the personification of the bond
of kinship (conceived as exclusively mother-kinship), just as Adam is
simply *man,' i.e. the personification of mankind" {KM"^, 208). The
interpretation has found no support.
* So Baethgen, Beitr. 148, who appends the note :

" Im holstein-
ischen Plattdeutsch ist * Dat Leben euphemistischer Ausdruck fiir das
'
—
pudendum muliebre " a meaning by the way which also attaches to
Ar. hayy (Lane, Lex. 681 b).
—
III. 20-22 87
the form n^n is not Heb., and the real meaning of the word
is not settled by the etymology here given (v.t.). — ^n"^3
commonly includes all animals (8-^ etc.), but is here

restricted to mankind (as Ps. 143^ Jb. 30^^). Cf. however,
TTOTvia Orjpwv, Lady of wild things,' a Greek
*
epithet of the
Earth -mother (Miss Harrison, Prol. 264). — 21. Another
detached notice describing the origin of clothing. It is,
of course, not inconsistent with v."^, but neither can it be

said to be the necessary sequel to that v. ; most probably
it is a parallel from another source. coa^s 0/ skin] **The
simplest and most primitive kind of clothing in 'practical
use" (Dri.).
An Interesting" question arises as to the connexion between this

method of clothing- and the loss of pristine innocence. That it exhibits
God's continued care for man even after the Fall (Di. al.) may be true
as regards the present form of the legend ; but that is hardly the
original conception. In the Phoen. legend of Usoos, the invention is
connected with the hunting- of wild animals, and this again with the
institution of sacrifice ... 6s (TK^Trrjv t^ aibfiaTi TrptDros iK dep/xdruv <bv
:
taxvo'^ (TvWaêlv evpe a/ia re cirivSeiv aâts i^ S)V ijypeve

drjp'nav . . .
Ev. I. 10; Orelli, p. 17 f.)- Since sacrifice and the use of

dfiplwv {PrcBp.
animal food were inseparably associated in Semitic antiquity, it may
be assumed that this is conceived as the first departure from the Golden
Age, when men lived on the spontaneous fruits of the earth. Similarly,
Rob. Sm. {RSî 306 ff.) found in the v. the Yahwistic theory of the
introduction of the sacrifice of domestic animals, which thus coincided,
as in Greek legend, with the transition from the state of innocence to
the life of agriculture.
22-24. The actual expulsion. —22. Behold , , , one of

us\ This is no * ironica exprobatio' (Calv. al.), but a serious
admission that man has snatched a divine prerogative not
meant for him. The feeling expressed (cf. 11^) is akin to
what the Greeks called the 'envy of the gods,' and more
remotely to the OT attribute of the zeal or jealousy of Yah we,
— His resentment of all action that encroaches on His
21. Point DnxS, as in v.". —22. nnxD] Constr. before prep. ; G-K.
§130 a. — «sp] The so-called oriental punctuation (which distinguishes
ist pi. from 3rd sg. masc. suffix) has i5sp, 'from us' (B-D. p. 81). 2^*^
(ni'D nd'?j;2 n'n') and S {bixov dcp' iavroO) treat the form as 3rd sing-. :
cf. Ra.'s paraphrase: "alone below, as I am alone above." — nj/'n"?] *

in
[respect ofj knowing': gerundial inf. ; Dav. §93; G-K. § 1140; Dri.
— —
SS PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
divinity (see p. 97). In v.^ the same words are put in the
mouth of the serpent with a distinct imputation of envy
to God; and it is perhaps improbable that the writer of
that V. would have justified the serpent's insinuation, even
in form, by a divine utterance. There are several indica-
tions {e.g-. the phrase * like one of us ') that the secondary
recension to which v.^^ belongs represents a cruder form
of the legend than does the main narrative; and it is
possible that it retains more of the characteristically pagan

feeling of theenvy of the gods. m
respect of knowings etc.\
Man attained complete equality with God, but
has not
only God-likeness in this one respect. Gres.'s contention
that the v. is self-contradictory (man has become like a
god, and yet lacks the immortality of a god) is therefore
unfounded. And now, etc.] There remains another divine
attribute be prompt to seize, viz. immor-
which man will
tality: to prevent his thus attaining complete likeness to

God he must be debarred from the Tree of Life. The
expression put forth his hand suggests that a single
partaking of the would have conferred eternal life
fruit
(Bu. Urg. 52) and at least implies that it would have

;
been an easy thing to do. The question why man had not
as yet done so is not impertinent (De.), but inevitable; so
momentous an issue could not have been left to chance in
a continuous narrative. Tlie obvious solution is that in this
'^
recension the Tree of Life was a (or the) forbidden tree,

that man in his first innocence had respected the injunction,
but that now when he knows the virtue of the tree he will
not refrain from eating. It is to be observed that it is only
in this part of the story that the idea of immortality is
> /introduced,and that not as an essential endowment of

human nature, but as contingent on an act which would
be as efficacious after the Fall as before it. — On the aposio-
pesis at the end of the v., vA. —23 is clearly a doublet of
2* ; and the latter is the natural continuation of 22. V.^^ is
T, § 205.— The pregnant use of "js (=* I fear lest') is common (Gn. 19^*
26^ 38" 44^, Ex. 13^^ etc.). Here it is more natural to assume an
anakolouthon, the clause depending on a cohortative, converted in v.^
— —
in. 23, 24 89
a fitting conclusion to the main narrative, in which it

probably followed immediately on v.^^. 24. He drove out —
the man and made \him\ dwell on the east of [and . . .
stationed^ the Cherubim,^ etc.] This is the reading- of ffi {v.t.),

and it gives a more natural construction than MT, which
omits the words in brackets. On either view the assumption
is that the first abode of mankind was east of the garden.
There is no reason to suppose that the v. represents a

different tradition as to the site of Eden from 2^ or 2^^^-.
It is not said in 2^ that it was in the extreme east, or in

2^^ that it was in the extreme north ; nor is it here implied
that it was further west than Palestine. The account of
the early migration of the race in ii^ is quite consistent
with the supposition that mankind entered the Euphrates
valley from a region still further east. the Cherubim and
the revolving sword-flame\ Lit. ' the flame of the whirling
sword.' It has usually been assumed that the sword was
in the hand of one of the cherubim but probably it was an ;
independent symbol, and a representation of the lightning.

Some light may be thrown on it by an inscription of Tiglath-
pileser i. {KIB, i. 36 f.), where the king says that when he
destroyed the fortress of Hunusa he made *
a lightning of
bronze.' The emblem appears to be otherwise unknown,
but the allusion suggests a parallel to the *
flaming sword *
of this passage.
The Cherubim.— See the notes of Di. Gu. Dri. KAT^, 529 f., 631 ff. ; ;
Che. in EB, 741 ff. Je. ATLO^, 218; Haupt, SEAT, Numbers, 46;
;
Polychrome Bible, 181 f. Furtwangler, in Roscher's Lex. art. Gryps.

;
— The derivation of the word is uncertain. The old theory of a con-

nexion with ^pv-^ {Greif, griffin, etc.) is not devoid of plausibility, but
lacks proof. The often quoted statement of Lenormant {Orig. i. 118),
that kirubu occurs on an amulet in the de Clercq collection as a name
into a historic tense. dj] (&% om. — 24. (& Kal i^^âXev rbu 'Adh/i Kal
Karc^Kiffev airbv dw^vavTi toO vapadelaov rrjs rpvcpT^s, Kal ^raêv tcl x^P^^P^"
kt\. ='w D'3n3n-nN Dbji py pV mpo pE'-'i onNn-nx ty-in Ball rig-htly adopts
pc5"i, against J's usage.
this text, inserting- inN after There is no need
to supply any pron. obj. whatever see 2^^ 18' 38^^, i Sa. 19^^ etc.
:
For the first three words ^ has simply CrLQ-S|o, and for pt^'i (O ^^
(with the cherubim, etc., as obj,). —na£3nnDn] Hithpa. in the sense of
•revolve,' Ju. 7^^, Jb. 37^^ . j^ Jb. 38^* it means *be transformed.'
90 THE PARADISE
of the winged Assyrian palaces, seems to be definitely disproved
bulls of
(see Je. 218). —A
great part of the OT symbolism could be explained
from the hypothesis that the Cherubim were originally wind-demons,
like the Harpies of Greek mythology (Harrison, Prol. lySff.). The
most suggestive analogy to this verse is perhaps to be found in the
winged genii often depicted by the side of the tree of life in Babylonian
art. These figures are usually human in form with human heads, but
sometimes combine the human form with an eagle's head, and occasion-
ally the human head with an animal body. They are shown in the act
of fecundating the date-palm by transferring the pollen of the male
tree to the flower of the female and hence it has been conjectured that
;
they are personifications of the winds, by whose agency the fertilisation

of the palm is effected in nature (Tylor, PSBA, xii. 383 fF.). Starting
with this clue, we can readily explain (i) the function of the Cherub as
the living chariot of Yah we, or bearer of the Theophany, in Ps. 18^^
(2 Sa. 22^^). It is a personification of the storm-wind on which Yahwe
rides, just as the Babylonian storm-god Zd was figured as a bird-deity.

The theory was a personification of the thunder-cloud is a mere
that it
conjecture based on Ps. i8^"', and has no more intrinsic probability than
that here suggested. (2) The association of the winged figures with
the Tree of Life in Babylonian art would naturally lead to the belief
that the Cherubim were denizens of Paradise (Ezk. 28^*- 1^), and guardians
of the Tree (as in this passage). (3) Thence they came to be viewed as
guardians of sacred things and places generally, like the composite
figures placed at the entrances of Assyrian temples and palaces to
prevent the approach of evil spirits. To this category belong probably
in the first instance the colossal Cherubim of Solomon's temple (i Ki.
523ff. and the miniatures on the lid of the ark in the Tabernacle
gef.^^
(Ex. but a trace of the primary conception appears in the

25^^^- etc.) ;
alternation of cherubim and palm-trees in the temple decoration (i Ki.

(4) The most
y^s^-, Ex. 26^- î).
6^^^-, Ezk. 4ii8«^-; see, further, i Ki.
difficult embodiment of the idea is found in the Cherubim of Ezekiel's
visions— four composite creatures combining the features of the ox, the
lion, the man, and the eagle (Ezk. i^^- lo^^-)- These may represent
primarily the four winds of heaven
' but the complex symbolism of
' ;
the Merkdbah shows that they have some deeper cosmic significance.
Gu. (p. 20) thinks that an older form of the representation is preserved
in Apoc. 4^^-, where the four animal types are kept distinct. These he
connects with the four constellations of the Zodiac which mark the four
quarters of the heavens Taurus, Leo, Scorpio (in the earliest astronomy
:
a scorpion-;na»), and Aquila (near Aquarius). See KAT^, 631 f. Jfr
The Origin and Significance of the Paradise Legend,

I. Ethnic parallels.— The Babylonian version of the Fall of man
(ifany such existed) has not yet been discovered. There is in the
British Museum a much-debated seal-cylinder which is often cited as
evidence that a legend very similar to the biblical narrative was current
in Babylonia. It shows two completely clothed figures seated on either
—
LEGEND 91
side of a tree, and each stretching^ out a hand toward its fruit, while a
crooked line on the left of the picture is supposed to exhibit the serpent.*
The engraving- no doubt represents some legend connected with the tree
of life ; but even if we knew that it illustrates the first temptation, the
story is itill wanting and the details of the picture show that it can
;
have had very little resemblance to Gn. 3. —The most that can be
claimed is that there are certain remote parallels to particular features
or ideas of Gn. 2^-3", which are yet sufficiently close to suggest that
the ultimate source of the biblical narrative is to be sought in the
Babylonian mythology. Attention should be directed to the following :
(a) The account of Creation in 2^' has undoubted resemblances

to the Babylonian document described on p. 47 f., though they are
hardly such as to prove dependence. Each starts with a vision of
chaos, and in both the prior existence of heaven and earth seems to be
assumed although the Babylonian chaos is a waste of waters, while
;
that of Gn. 2^^ is based rather on the idea of a waterless desert (see
p. 56 above). The order of creation, though not the same, is alike
in its promiscuous and unscientific character: in the Babylonian we
—
have a hopeless medley mankind, beasts of the field, living things of
the field, Tigris and Euphrates, verdure of the field, grass, marshes,
reeds, wild-cow, ewe, sheep of the fold, orchards, forests, houses, and
cities, etc. etc.— —
but no separate creation of woman. The creation of
mati from earth moistened by the blood of a god, in another document,
may be instanced as a distant parallel to 2'^ (pp. 42, 45).
(5) The legend of Eabani, embedded in the GilgameS-Epic (Tab. I.
Col. ii. 1. 33 ff.
: KIBy vi. i, p. i2off.), seems to present us (it has been
thought) with a 'type of primitive man.' Eabani, created as a rival
to GilgameS by the goddess Aruru from a lump of clay, is a being of
gigantic strength who is found associating with the wild animals, living
their life, and foiling all the devices of the huntsman. Eager to capture
him, GilgameS sends with the huntsman a harlot, by whose attractions
he hopes to lure Eabani from his savagery. Eabani yields to her
charms, and is led, a willing- captive, to the life of civilisation:
When she speaks to him, her speech pleases him.

One who knows his heart he seeks, a friend.
But later in the epic, the harlot appears as the cause of his sorrows,
and Eabani curses her with all his heart. Apart from its present
setting, and considered as an independent bit of folk-lore, it cannot
be denied that the story has a certain resemblance to Gn. 2^^'^*. Only,
we may be sure that if the idea of sexual intercourse with the beasts be
implied in the picture of Eabani, the moral purity of the Hebrew writer
never stooped so low (see Jastrow, AJSLy xv. 198 ff. Stade, ZATW,
;
xxiii. i74f.).
(c) Far more instructive affinities with the inner motive of the story
* Reproduced in Smith's Chaldean Genesis, 88 Del. Babel und Bihel

;
(M'Cormack's trans, p. 48) ATLO^, 203, etc. Je. has satisfied himself
;
that the zigzag line is a snake, but is equally convinced that the snake
cannot be tempting a man and a woman to eat the fruit.
: :
92 THE PARADISE
of the Fall are found in the myth of Adapa and the South-'wind, dis-
covered amongst the Tel-Amarna Tablets, and therefore known in
Palestine in the 15th cent. B.C. {KIB, vl. i, 92-101). Adapa, the son
of the god Ea, is endowed by him with the fulness of divine wisdom,
but denied the gift of immortalitj'
"Wisdom I gave him, immortality I gave him not."
While plying the trade of a fisherman on the Persian Gulf, the south-
wind overwhelms his bark, and in revenge Adapa breaks the wings of
the south-wind. For this offence he is summoned by Anu to, appear
before the assembly of the gods in heaven and Ea instructs him how
;
to appease the anger of Anu. Then the gods, disconcerted by finding

a mortal in possession of their secrets, resolve to make the best of it, and
to admit him fully into their society, by conferring on him immortality.
They offer him food of life that he may eat, and water of life that he
may drink. But Adapa had previously been deceived by Ea, who did
not wish him to become immortal. Ea had said that what would be
offered to him would be food and water of death, and had strictly
cautioned him to refuse. He did refuse, and so missed immortal life.
Anu laments over his infatuated refusal
"Why, Adapa! Wherefore hast thou not eaten, not drunken, so that
Thou wilt not live ?" " Ea, my
. . . lord,
! "
Commanded, Eat not and drink not
* '
"Take him and bring him back to his earth!"

This looks almost like a travesty of the leading ideas of Gn. 3 yet the ;
common features are very striking. In both we have the idea that
wisdom and immortality combined constitute equality with deity in ;
both we have a man securing the first and missing the second and in ;
both the man is counselled in opposite directions by supernatural voices,

and acts on that advice which is contrary to his interest. There is, of
course, the vital difference that while Yahwe forbids both wisdom and
immortality to man, Ea confers the first (and thus far plays the part of
the biblical serpent) but withholds the second, and Anu is ready to
bestow both. Still, it is not too much to expect that a story like this
will throw light on the mythological antecedents of the Genesis narrative,
if not directly on that narrative itself (see below, p. 94).
What is true of Babylonian affinities holds good in a lesser degree

of the ancient mythologies as a whole everywhere we find echoes of
:
the Paradise myth, but nowhere a story which forms an exact parallel
to Gn. 2. 3. The Graeco-Roman traditions told of a 'golden age,' lost
through the increasing sinfulness of the race, an age when the earth—
freely yielded its fruits, and men lived in a happiness undisturbed by
toil or care or sin (Hesiod, Op. et Dies, 90-92, 109-120; Ovid, Met. i.
89-112, etc.); but they knew nothing of a sudden fall. Indian and
Persian mythologies told, in addition, of sacred mountains where the
gods dwelt, with bright gold and flashing gems, and miraculous trees
conferring immortality, and every imaginable blessing and we have ;
seen that similar representations were current in Babylonia. The

nearest approach to definite counterparts of the biblical narrative
LEGEND 93
are found Iranian leg-ends, where we read of Meshia and Meshiane,
in
who on fruits, but who, tempted by Ahriman, denied the
lived at first
good god, lost their innocence, and practised all kinds of wickedness ;
or of Yima, the ruler of the golden age, under whom there was neither
sickness nor death, nor hunger nor thirst, until (in one tradition) he
gave way to pride, and fell under the dominion of the evil serpent
Dahaka (see Di. p. 47 ff.)- But these echoes are too faint and distant
to enable us to determine the quarter whence the original impulse pro-
ceeded, or where the myth assumed the form in which it appears in
Genesis. For answers to these questions we are dependent mainly on
the uncertain indications of the biblical narrative itself. Some features
(the name Havvah [p. 85 f.], and elements of ch. 4) seem to point to
Phoenicia as the quarter whence this stratum of myth entered the
religion of Israel others (the Paradise-geography) point rather to
;
Babylonia, or at least Mesopotamia. In the present state of our

knowledge it is a plausible conjecture that the myth has travelled from
Babylonia, and reached Israel through the Phoenicians or the Canaan-

ites (We. Prol^ 307 Gres. ARW, x. 345 ff. cf. Be van, 7^5, iv. 500 f.).
; ;
A similar conclusion might be drawn from the contradiction in the idea

of chaos, if the explanation given above of 2^ be correct it looks as if
:
the cosmogony of an alluvial region had been modified through trans-

ference to a dry climate (see p. 56). The fig-leaves of 3' are certainly
not Bab;f Ionian though a single detail of that kind cannot settle the
;
question of origin. But until further light comes from the monuments,
all speculations on this subject are very much in the air.
2. The vtythical substratum of the narrative. —
The strongest evidence
of the non-Israelite origin of the story of the Fall is furnished by the
biblical account itself, in the many mythological conceptions, of which
traces still remain in Genesis. "The narrative," as Dri. says, "con-
tains features which have unmistakable counterparts in the religious
traditions of other nations and some of these, though they have been
;
accommodated to the spirit of Israel's religion, carry indications that they

"
are not native to it {Gen. 51). Amongst the features which are at variance
with the standpoint of Hebrew religion we may put first of all the fact
that the abode of Yahwe is placed, not in Canaan or at Mount Sinai,
but in the far East. The strictly mythological background of the story
emerges chiefly in the conceptions of the garden of the gods (see p. 57 f.),
the trees of life and of knowledge (p. 59), the serpent (p. 72 f.). Eve (p. 85 f.),
and the Cherubim (p. 89 f). It is true, as has been shown, that each of
these conceptions is rooted in the most primitive ideas of Semitic religion ;
but it is equally true that they have passed through a mythological

development for which the religion of Israel gave no opportunity. Thus
the association of trees and serpents in Semitic folk-lore is illustrated by
an Arabian story, which tells how, when an untrodden thicket was
burned down, the spirits of the trees made their escape in the shape of
white serpents {RS\ 133); but it is quite clear that a long interval
separates that primitive superstition from the ideas that invest the
serpent and the tree in this passage. If proof were needed, it would be
found in the suggestive combinations of the serpent and the tree in
—
94 THE PARADISE
Babylonian and Phcenician art ; or in the fabled garden of the
Hesperides, with its golden fruit guarded by a dragon, always figured
in artistic representations as a huge snake coiled round the trunk of the
tree (cf. Lenormant, Origines, i. 93 f.: see the illustrations in Roscher,
Lex. 2599 f.). How the various elements were combined in the particular
myth which lies immediately behind the biblical narrative, it is impossible
to say but the myth of Adapa suggests at least some elements of a
;
possible construction, which cannot be very far from the truth. Ob-
-J^Viously we have to do with a polytheistic legend, in which rivalries and
jealousies between the different deities are almost a matter of course.
The serpent is himself a demon and his readiness to initiate man in
;
the knowledge of the mysterious virtue of the forbidden tree means that
he is at variance with the other gods, or at least with the particular god
who had imposed the prohibition. The intention of the command was
to prevent man from sharing the life of the gods ; and the serpent-
demon, posing as the good genius of man, defeats that intention by
revealing to man the truth (similarly Gu. 30). To the original heathen
myth we may also attribute the idea of the envy of the gods, which the
biblical narrator hardly avoids, and the note of weariness and melan-
choly, the sombre view of life, — the scheue heidnische Stimmung,'
'
which is the ground-tone of the passage.

It is impossible to determine what, in the original myth, was the
nature of the tree (or trees) which man was forbidden to eat. Gres.
{I.e. 351 ff.) finds in the passage traces of three primitive conceptions:
(i) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whose fruit imparts the
—
knowledge of magic, the only knowledge of which it can be said that
it makes man at once the equal and the rival of the deity ; (2) the tree of
knowledge, whose fruit excites the sexual appetite and destroys child-
like innocence (3') ; (3) the tree of life, whose fruit confers immortality
(3^2). The question is immensely complicated by the existence of two
recensions, which do not seem so hopelessly inseparable as Gres. thinks.
In the main recension we have the tree of knowledge, of which man eats
to his hurt, but no hint of a tree of life. In the secondary recension
there is the tree of life (of which man does not eat), and apparently the
tree of knowledge of which he had eaten ; but this depends on the word
D3 in 3^2, which is wanting in ®r, and may be an interpolation. Again,
the statement that knowledge of good and evil really amounts to equality
with God, is found only in the second recension in the other it is doubt-
;
ful if the actual effect of eating the fruit was not a cruel disappointment
of the hope held out by the serpent. How far we are entitled to read
the ideas of the one into the other is a question we cannot answer.
Eerdmans* ingenious but improbable theory {ThT, xxxix. 504 fF.) need
not here be discussed. What is meant by knowledge of good and evil
in the final form of the narrative will be considered under the next head.
3. The religious ideas of the passage. —Out of such crude and seem-
ingly unpromising material the religion of revelation has fashioned the
immortal allegory before us. We have now to inquire what are the
religious and moral truths under the influence of which the narrative
assumed its present form, distinguishing as far as possible the ideas
LEGEND 95
which it originally conveyed from those which it suggested to more
advanced theological speculation.
(i) We
observe, in the first place, that the aetiological motive is
strongly marked throughout. The story gives an explanation of many
—
of the facts of universal experience, the bond between man and wife
(2^^), the sense of shame which accompanies adolescence (3''), the use of
clothing {3^^)y the instinctive antipathy to serpents (3^°). But chiefly it

seeks the key to the darker side of human existence as seen in a simple
agricultural state of society, —
the hard toil of the husbandman, the
birth-pangs of the woman, and her subjection to the man. These are
evils which the author feels to be contrary to the ideal of human nature,
and to the intention of a good God. They are results of a curse justly
incurred by transgression, a curse pronounced before history began, and
shadowing, rather than crushing, human life always and everywhere.
^l^^lt is doubtful if death be included in the effects of the curse. In v.^^ it is
spoken of as the natural fate of a being made from the earth in v,^^ it ;
follows from being excluded from the tree of life. Man was capable of
immortality, but not by nature immortal and God did not mean that he
;
should attain immortality. The death threatened in 2^' is immediate

death ; and to assume that the death which actually ensues is the ex-
action of that deferred penalty, is perhaps to go beyond the intention of
the writer. Nor does it appear that the narrative seeks to account for
/^^ the or igin of sin. It describes what was, no doubt, the^ first sin; but
it describes it as something intelligible, not needing explanation, not
a mystery like the instinct of shame or the possession of knowledge,

which are produced by eating the fruit of the tree.
(2) Amongst other things which distinguish man's present from his
original state, is the possession of a certain kind of knowledge which
was acquired by eating the forbidden fruit. This brings us to the most
difficult question which the narrative presents what is meant by the
:
knowledge of good and evil ? * Keeping in mind the possibility that

the two recensions may represent different conceptions, our data are
these : In 3^2 knowledge of good and evil is an attainment which (a)
* In OT usage, knowledge of good and evil marks the difflerence

between adulthood and childhood (Dt. 1^^, Is. 7^''-)> or second childhood
(2 Sa. 19^) ; it also denotes (with diff'erent verbs) judicial discernment of
right and wrong (2 Sa. 14", i Ki. 3^), which is an intellectual function,
quite distinct from the working of the conscience. The antithesis of
good and may, of course, be ethical (Am. 5^**-, Is. 5^^ etc.) but it
evil ;
may also be merely the contrast of pleasant and painful, or wholesome

and hurtful (2 Sa. 19^). Hence the phrase comes to stand for the whole
—
range of experience, "a comprehensive designation of things by their
two polar attributes, according to which they interest man for his weal
or hurt " cf. 2 Sa. 14^' with ^** all things that are in earth (Gn. 24^*^ 31^^).
: '
'
We. maintains that the non-ethical sense is fundamental, the expressions

being transferred to virtue and vice only in so far as their consequences
are advantageous or the reverse. Knowledge of good and evil may
—
thus mean knowledge in general,* knowing one tliing^ from another.
—;
g6 THE PARADISE
implies equality with God, (b) was forbidden to man, (c) is actually secured
In the leading- narrative (b) certainly holds good (2^'), but (a)
Lby man.
and (c) are doubtful. Did the serpent speak truth when he said that
knowledge of good and evil would make man like God? Did man
actually attain such knowledge ? Was the perception of nakedness a
first flash of the new divine insight which man had coveted, or was it a
bitter disenchantment and mockery of the hopes inspired by the serpent's
words ? It is only the habit of reading the ideas of 3^^ into the story of
A^_^he temptation which makes these questions seem superfluous. Let us
consider how far the various interpretations enable us to answer them.
i. The suggestion that magical knowledge is meant may be set aside as
inadequate to either form of the biblical narrative magic is not god- :
like knowledge, nor is it the universal property of humanity. — ii. The

usual explanation identifies the knowledge of good and evil with the
moral sense, the faculty of discerning between right and wrong. This
view is ably defended by Bu. {Urg: 69 ff.), and is not to be lightly dis-
missed, but yet raises serious difficulties. Could it be said that God
V- meant to withhold from man the power of moral discernment? Does
not the prohibition itself presuppose that man already knew that
obedience was right and disobedience sinful ? have no right to say We
that the restriction was only temporary, and that God would in other
ways have bestowed on man the gift of conscience
the narrative ;
suggests nothing of the sort. — iii. We. holds that the

{ProlJ^ 299 ff".)
knowledge in question is insight into the secrets of nature, and intel-

ligence to manipulate them for human ends and this as a quality not ;
—
so much of the individual as of the race, the knowledge which is the
principle of human civilisation. It is the faculty which we see at work
in the invention of clothing (3^1 ?), in the founding of cities (4^'^), in the
discovery of the arts and crafts (4'^^"), and in the building of the tower
(ii^^-). The undertone of condemnation of the cultural achievements of
humanity which runs through the Yahwistic sections of chs. i-ii makes
t^ it probable that the writer traced their root to the knowledge acquired
by the first transgression and of such knowledge it might be said that
;
it made man like God, and that God willed to withhold it permanently
from His creatures.- -iv. Against this view Gu. (11 f., 25 f.) urges some-
what ineptly that the myth does not speak of arts and aptitudes which
are learned by education, but of a kind of knowledge which comes by
nature, of which the instinct of sex is a typical illustration. Knowledge
of good and evil is simply the enlargement of capacity and experience
—
which belongs to mature age, ripeness of judgment, reason, including —
moral discernment, but not identical with it. The difference between —
^.'the last two explanations is not great and possibly both are true.
;
We.'s seems to me the only view that does justice to the thought of 3^2
and if 4^^^* and 11^'^ be the continuation of this version of the Fall, the
theory has much to recommend it. On the other hand, Gu.'s acceptation
may be truer to the teaching of 3^^*. Man's primitive state was one of
childlike innocence and purity and the knowledge which he obtained
;
by disobedience is the knowledge of life and of the world which distin-

guishes the grown man from the child. If it be objected that suph
LEGEND 97
knowledge isa good thing, which God could not have forbidden to man,
we may be content tofall back on the paradox of Christ's idea of child-
hood " Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no

:
wise enter into the kingdom of heaven."

(3) The next point that claims attention is the author's conception of
sin. Formally, sin is represented as an act of disobedience to a positive
command, imposed as a test of fidelity an act, therefore, which implies
;
disloyalty to God, and a want of the trust and confidence due from man
to his Maker. But the essence of the transgression lies deeper God
:
had a reason for imposing the command, and man had a motive for
disobeying it ; and the reason and motive are unambiguously indicated.
Man was tempted by the desire to be as God, and Yahwe does not will
that man should be as God. Sin is thus in the last instance presump-'i
tion,— an overstepping of the limits of creaturehood, and an encroach- i,
ment on the prerogatives of Deity. It is true that the offence is invested
—
with every circumstance of extenuation, inexperience, the absence of
evil intention, the suddenness of the temptation, and the superior subtlety
of the serpent but sin it was nevertheless, and was justly followed by
;
—
punishment. How far the passage foreshadows a doctrine of hereditary
sin, it is impossible to say. The consequences of the transgression,
both privative and positive, are undoubtedly transmitted from the first \,
-
pair to their posterity but whether the sinful tendency itself is regarded^^.
;
as having become hereditary in the race, there is not evidence to show, t-^''
(4) Lastly, what view of God does the narrative present ? It has
already been pointed out that 3^2 borders hard on the pagan notion
of the * envy of the godhead, a notion difficult to reconcile with the
'
conceptions of OT religion. But of that idea there is no trace in

the main narrative of the temptation and the Fall, except in the lying
insinuation of the serpent: the writer himself does not thus 'charge
God foolishly.' His religious attitude is one of reverent submission to the
limitations imposed on human life by a sovereign Will, which is deter-
mined to maintain inviolate the distinction between the divine and the
human. The attribute most conspicuously displayed is closely akin to
what the prophets called the 'holiness' of God, as illustrated, e.g:, in Is.
2i2ff.^
After all, the world is God's world and not man's, and the Almighty
is just, as well as holy, when He frustrates the impious aspiration of
humanity after an independent footing and sphere of action in the uni-
verse. The God of Gn. 3 is no arbitrary heathen deity, dreading lest
the sceptre of the universe should be snatched from his hand by the
soaring ambition of the race of men but a Being infinitely exalted above
;
^
the world, stern in His displeasure at sin, and terrible in His justice;
yet benignant and compassionate, slow to anger, and repenting Him of
*
the evil.' Through an intensely anthropomorphic medium we discern the

features of the God of the prophets and the Old Testament nay, in the
;
analogy of human fatherhood which underlies the description, we can

trace the lineaments of the God and Father of Jesus Christ. That is the
real Protevangeliuvt which lies in the passage the fact that God tempers
:
judgment with mercy, the faith that man, though he has forfeited in-
nocence and happiness, is not cut off from fellowship with his Creator.
— ;
98
Ch. IV. Beginnings of History and Civilisation.
Critical Analysis. — Ch. 4 consists of three easily separable sections :
(a) the story of Cain and Abel (i-^^), {h) a Cainite genealogy ("-2*),*
and (c) a fragment of a Sethite genealogy {^' 2^). As they lie before
us, these are woven into a consecutive history of antediluvian mankind,
with a semblance of unity sufficient to satisfy the older generation of
critics, t Closer examination seems to show that the chapter is com-
posite, and that the superficial continuity conceals a series of critical
problems of great intricacy.
I. We have first to determine the character and extent of the
Cainite genealogy. It is probable that the first link occurs in v.^*^*, and
has to be disentangled from the Cain legend (so We. Bu.); whether
it can have included the whole of that legend is a point to be considered
later (p. 100). We have thus a list of Adam's descendants through

Cain, continued in a single line for seven generations, after which it
branches into three, and then ceases. It has no explicit sequel in
Genesis; the sacred number 7 marks it as complete in itself; and
the attempts of some scholars to remodel it in accordance with its
supposed original place in the history are to be distrusted. Its main
purpose is to record the origin of various arts and industries of civilised
life ;and apart from the history of Cain there is nothing whatever to
indicate that it deals with a race of sinners, as distinct from the godly
line of Seth. That this genealogy belongs to J has hardly been
questioned except by Di., who argues with some hesitation for assigning
it to E, chiefly on the ground of its discordance with vv.^-^^. Bu.
(p. 220 flF.) has shown that the stylistic criteria point decidedly (if not
quite unequivocally) to J;:J: and in the absence of any certain trace of E
in chs. i-ii, the strong presumption is that the genealogy represents a
stratum of the former document. The question then arises whether it
be the original continuation of ch. 3. An essential connexion cannot,
from the nature of the case, be affirmed. The primitive genealogies
are composed of desiccated legends, in which each member is originally
independent of the rest and we are not entitled to assume that an
;
account of the Fall necessarily attached itself to the person of the first
man. If it were certain that 3^*' is an integral part of one recension of
the Paradise story, it might reasonably be concluded that that recension
was continued in 4^, and then in 4""24. In the absence of complete
certainty on that point the larger question must be left in suspense
there is, however, no difficulty in supposing that in the earliest written
collection of Hebrew traditions the genealogy was preceded by a history
of the Fall in a version partly preserved in ch. 3. The presumption that
this was the case would, of course, be immensely strengthened if we could
suppose it to be the intention of the original writer to describe not merely
the progress of culture, but also the rapid development of sin (so We.).
* We. unites v.isb with "-24, | ^g^ Hupfeld, Quellen, i26fF.

J nV; = 'beget,' ^^ ; Kin dj, 22 {in ge?iealogies, confined to J, lo^^ 19"
2220. 24*^26) . vn« DB-i, 2^ (cf. io23) ; cf. ^^ wlth io25 etc. (Bu. l.cX
;
IV.
99
2. The fragmentary genealogy of vv.25-26 corresponds, so far as it
goes, with the Sethite genealogy of P in ch. 5. It will be shown later

^^'''^ and
(p. 138 f.) that the lists of 5 go back to a common original
and if the discrepancy had been merely between J and P, the obvious
conclusion would be that these two documents had followed different
traditional variants of the ancient genealogy. But how are we to
account for the fact that the first three names of P's list occur also in
the connexion of J ? There are four possible solutions, (i) It is conceiv-
able that J, not perceiving the ultimate identity of the two genealogies,
incorporated both in his document (cf. Ew. JBB W, vi. p. 4) ; and that
the final redactor (R^) then curtailed the second list in view of ch. 5.
This hypothesis is on various grounds improbable. It assumes (see ^sb)
the murder of Abel by Cain as an original constituent of
J's narrative ;
now that story takes for granted that the worship of Yahwe was
practised from the beginning, whereas '^^ explicitly states that it was
only introduced in the third generation. (2) It has not unnaturally
been conjectured that v.^^- are entirely redactional (Ew. Schr. al.) i.e., ;
that they were inserted by an editor (RP) to establish a connexion

between the genealogy of J and that of P. In favour of this view the
use of DIN (as a proper name) and of D'h*?*? has been cited but again the ;
statement of ^*» presents an insurmountable difficulty. P has his own

definite theory of the introduction of the name nin'(see Ex. 6^^-), and it is
incredible that any editor influenced by him should have invented the
gratuitous statement that the name was in use from the time of Enosh.
(3) A third view is that vv.^^-
26 stood originally before
v.^ (or before v."),
so that the father of Cain and Abel (or of Cain alone) was not Adam but
Enosh and that the redactor who made the transposition is responsible
;
also for some changes on v.^ to adapt it to its new setting (so Sta.)
(see on the v.). That is, no doubt, a plausible solution (admitted as
possible by Di.), although it involves operations on the structure of the
genealogy too drastic and precarious to be readily assented to. It is
difficult also to imagine any sufficient motive for the supposed trans-
position. That it was made to find a connexion for the (secondary)
story of Cain and Abel is a forced suggestion. The tendency of a
redactor must have been to keep that story as far from the beginning as
possible, and that the traditional data should have been deliberately
altered so as to make
it the opening scene of human history is hardly
intelligible. There remains the hypothesis that the two genealogies

(4)
belong to separate strata within the Yahwistic tradition, which had
been amalgamated by a redactor of that school (RJ) prior to the
incorporation of P and that the second list was curtailed by RP because
;
of its substantial identity with Code in ch. 5.

that of the Priestly
The harmonistic glossing of an inevitable assumption of any
v.^^ is
theory except (i) and (2) it must have taken place after the insertion
;
of the Cain and Abel episode and on the view we are now considering
;
it must be attributed to RJ. In other respects the solution is free from

difficulty. The recognition of the complex character of the source called
J is forced on us by many lines of proof and it will probably be found
;
that this view of the genealogies yields a valuable clue to the structure
:
lOO CAIN AND ABEL (j)
of the non-Priestly sections of chs. 2-1 1 (see pp. 3, 134). One important
consequence may here be noted. Eve's use of the name D'hSn, and the
subsequent notice of the introduction of the name ni.T, sugg-est that this
writer had previously avoided the latter title of God (as E and P pre-
viously to Ex. 3^^** and Ex. be the case that one
6^-). Hence, if it
recension of the Paradise story was characterised by the exclusive use

of dmSn (see p. 53), 4^* ^ will naturally be regarded as the sequel to
that recension.
3. There remains the Cain and Abel narrative of vv.^"^^ That it
belong-s to J in the wider sense is undisputed,* but its precise affinities
within the Yahwistic cycle are exceedingly perplexing. If the theory
mentioned at the end of the last paragraph is correct, the consistent use
of the name nin't would show that it was unknown to the author of
yy 25. 26 g^^f^ Qf tjâ^t form of the Paradise story presupposed by these vv.
Is it, then, a primary element of the genealogy in which it is embedded ?
It certainly contains notices —
such as the introduction of agriculture
and (perhaps) the origin of sacrifice in keeping- with the idea of the —
g-enealogy but the length and amplitude of the narration would be
;
without parallel in a genealogy and (what is more decisive) there is an

;
obvious incongruity between the Cain of the legend, doomed to a

fugitive unsettled existence, and the Cain of the genealogy (v. ^''), who as
the first city-builder inaugurates the highest type of stable civilised life.t
Still more complicated are the relations of the passage to the history of
the Fall in ch. 3. On the one hand, a series of material incongruities

seem to show that the two narratives are unconnected : the assumption
of an already existing population on the earth could hardly have been
made by the author of ch. 3 ; the free choice of occupation by the two
brothers, and Yahwe's preference for the shepherd's sacrifice, ignore
the representation (3^^) that husbandry is the destined lot of the race ;
and the curse on Cain is recorded in terms which betray no conscious-
ness of a primal curse resting on the ground. It is true, on the other
hand, that the literary form of 4^"^^ contains striking reminiscences of
that of ch. 3. surprising of these (4''' 3^^^) may be set down

The most ||
to textual corruption (see the note on the v.) ; but there are several other
turns of expression which recall the language of the earlier narrative
cf. 4^* ^°' ^^ with
3^' ^^' ^'. In both we have the same sequence of sin,
investigationand punishment (in the form of a curse), the same dramatic
dialogue, and the same power of psychological analysis. But whether
these resemblances are such as to prove identity of authorship is a
question that cannot be confidently answered. There is an indistinct-
* Cf. ni.T, 1- 3. 4. 6. 9. 13. 16. 16 . -^^j,^ 11 . .jy^^^^ 16 .

^nd obs. the resemblances
to ch. 3 noted below : the naming of the child by the mother.
t This uniformity of usage is not, however, observed in (&. In (K^
Kipios occurs twice {^' ^^), 6 6e6s 5 times (^- *• ^' ^^' ^^), and K6pios 6 Beds 3
times (^- ^^- ^^) (for variants, see Cambridge LXX).
:J:
Even if we adopt Bu.'s emendation of v.^'', and make Enoch the
city-founder (see on the v.), it still remains improbable that that r6le
should be assigned to the son of a wandering nomad.
—
IV. I lOI
ness of conception in 4^*** which contrasts unfavourably with the con-

vincing lucidity of ch. 3, as if the writer's touch were less delicate, or
his gift of imaginative delineation more restricted. Such impressions
are too subjective to be greatly trusted but, taken along with the ;
material differences already enumerated, they confirm the opinion that

the literary connexion between ch. 3 and 4^^* is due to conscious or
unconscious imitation of one writer by another. On the whole, the —
evidence points to the following conclusion The story of Cain and Abel :
existed as a popular legend entirely independent of the traditions

regarding the infancy of the race, and having no vital relation to any
part of its present literary environment. It was incorporated in the Yah-
wistic document by a writer familiar with the narrative of the Fall, who
identified the Cain of the legend with the son of the first man, and linked
the story to his name in the genealogy. How much of the original
genealogy has been preserved it is impossible to say any notices :
that belonged to it have certainly been rewritten, and cannot now be

isolated ; but v.^ (birth of Cain) may with reasonable probability be
assigned to it (so Bu.), possibly also ^^P (Cain's occupation), and 3^
(Cain's sacrifice). — Other important questions
be best considered will
in connexion with the original significance of the legend (p. iii ff.).
IV. I — 1 6. Cain and A heL
Eve bears to her husband two sons, Cain and Abel the ;
becomes a tiller of the ground, and the second a keeper

first
of sheep (^- 2). Each offers to Yahwe the sacrifice ap-

propriate to his calling; but only the shepherd's offering
is accepted, and Cain is filled with morose jealousy and
hatred of Abel Though warned by Yahwe (<5^-), he yields

(3"^).
to his evil passion and slays his brother (S). Yahwe pro-
nounces him accursed from the fertile ground, which will no
longer yield its substance to him, and he is condemned to
the wandering life of the desert (^^"^2^. As a mitigation of
his lot, Yahwe appoints him a sign which protects him from
indiscriminate vengeance (^*^-) and he departs into the land ;
of Nod, east of Eden (i^).

1-5. Birth of Cain and Abel their occupation, :
—
and sacrifice. I. On the naming of the child by the
1. yT mxm] A plup. sense (Ra.) being unsuitable, the peculiar order
of words is difficult to explain ; see on 3^ and cf 21^. Sta. {Ak. Red.
239) regards it as a proof of editorial manipulation. The euphemistic —
use of yT is peculiar to J in the Hex. (7 times) Nu. 3i^'' ^^' ^ (P : cf. Ju.:
2 1 11.
12^ are somewhat different. Elsewhere Ju. ii^îg^'^-^s^ i Sa. i^*,
I Ki. I*, — all in the older historiography, and some perhaps from the
— ;'
I02 CAIN AND ABEL (j)
mother^ see Benzlnger, Archceol?- ii6. It is peculiar to the

oldest strata (J and E) of the Hex., and is not quite con-
sistently observed even there (4^® 5^^ 25^^^-, Ex. 2^^) : it may
therefore be a relic of the matriarchate which was giving
place to the later custom of naming by the father (P) at the
time when these traditions were taking shape. —The difficult
sentence ri"in^'ns C^''^? ''ri''2i5 connects the name XP. with the
verb nj|5. But T^'l\> has two meanings in Heb. : {a) to (create,
or) produce, and [h) to acquire ; and it is not easy to
determine which is intended here.
The secondidea would seem more suitable in the present connexion,
but leads to a forced and doubtful construction of the last two words,
it
(a) To render nx with the help of (Di. and most) is against all
*
analog-y. It is admitted that nx itself nowhere has this sense (in 49^
the true reading and Mic 3^ is at least doubtful) and the few
is '?ni, ;
cases in which the synonym Dy can be so translated are not really

parallel. Both in i Sa. 14*^ and Dn. ii^^, the oy denotes association
in the same act, and therefore does not go beyond the sense 'along
with.' The analogy does not hold in this v. if the vb. means acquire *
'
Eve could not say that she had acquired a man along with Yahwe.
{b) We may, of course, assume an error in the text and read nNiD= from '
(Bu. al. after C^). (c) The idea that nK the sign of ace. (€^, al.), and
is
that Eve imagined she had given birth to the divine seed promised in' '
3" (Luther, al.) may be disregarded as a piece of antiquated dogmatic

exegesis. — If we adopt the other meaning of n^p, the construction is
perfectly natural / have created (or produced) a man with (the co-
:
*' When he created me and my husband

operation of) Yahwe (cf Ra. :
he created us alone, but in this case we are associated with him ").
A strikingly similar phrase in the bilingual Babylonian account of
Creation (above, p. 47) suggests that the language here may be more
deeply tinged with mythology than has been generally suspected. We
read that "Aruru, together with him [Marduk], created (the) seed of
mankind": Aruru zi-ir a-mi-lu-ti it-ti-Su ib-ta-nu {KIB, vi. i, 40 f. ;
King, Cr. Tab. i. 134 f.). Aruru, a form of Istar, is a mother-goddess

of the Babylonians (see KAT^y 430), «-^., a deified ancestress, and
therefore so far the counterpart of the Heb. njn (see on 3^). The
exclamation certainly gains in significance if we suppose it to have
survived from a more mythological phase of tradition, in which
literary school of J. X.\i\s] I'P (Ar. kana). In Ar. kain means 'smith '
;
= Syr. f
» 1 » Oj
worker in metal (see 4^^ 58). Noldeke's remark, that
'
'
in Ar, kain several words are combined, is perhaps equally true of Heb.
]\yi{EB, 130). Many critics (We. Bu. Sta. Ho. al.) take the name as
eponym of the Kenites (i:p, Tp) : seep. 113 below. — 'nup] All Vns. express
the idea of *
acquiring ' {iKryjadfxrjp, possedi, etc.). The sense 'create'
or 'originate,' though apparently confined to Heb. and subordinate
;
IV. 2, 3 I03
Hawwah was not a mortal wife and mother, but a creative deity taking
part with the supreme god in the production of man. See Cheyne,
TBI^ 104, who thinks it "psychologically probable that Eve congratu-
lated herself on having 'created' a man." That e^'n is not elsewhere —
used of a man-child is not a serious objection to any interpretation (cf.
1^3 in Jb. 3^) though the thought readily occurs that the etymology
;
would be more appropriate to the name iîj^ (4^^) than to pp.
2. And again she hare^ etc.\ The omission of the verb

Tr\J\ is not to be pressed as implying- that the brothers were
twins, although that may very well be the meaning. The
OT contains no certain trace of the widespread superstitions
regarding twin-births. —The sons betake themselves to the
two fundamental pursuits of settled life the elder to :
agriculture, the younger to the rearing of small cattle

(sheep and goats). The previous story of the Fall, in which
Adam, as representing the race, is condemned to husbandry,
seems to be ignored (Gu.).
The absence of an etymology of %r\ is remarkable (but cf. v.^'^,

and hardly to be accounted for by the supposition that the name was
only coined afterwards in token of his brief, fleeting existence (Di.).
The word (=* breath') might suggest that to a Heb. reader, but the
original sense is unknown. Gu. regards it as the proper name of an
extinct tribe or people Ew. We. al. take it to be a variant of ^5;,
;
the father of nomadic shepherds (4^0) and Cheyne has ingeniously ;
combined both names with a group of Semitic words denoting domestic
animals and thosewho take charge of them {e.g. Syr. )±0(JI= herd * '
Ar. 'aWa/=* camel-herd,' etc.): the meaning would then be 'herds-

man {EB, i. 6). The conjecture is retracted in TBI^ in the interests
'
of Yerahme'el.
3. An offering^ "^H^Pj lit. a present or tribute (32^^^- 33I0

4311^-, I Sa. io27 etc.) : see below. The use of this word
even there, is established by Dt. 32*, Pr. 8^2, Ps. 13913, Gn. 1419- 22 —^^j
Of the Vns. ZP alone can be thought to have read nND (onp }d) one ;
anonymous Gr. tr. (see Field) took the word as not ace. {Avepuirov
Kvpiov) the rest vary greatly in rendering (as was to be expected from
;
the difficulty of the phrase), but there is no reason to suppose they had
a different text : ffi Sid, toO d., S. ffdv k.,'0 'E^p. Kal 6 ^6p.: iv 6., 5J per
Deum, S) ]-»,'V)\. Conjectures: Marti {Lit. Centralhl., 1897, xx. 641)
andZeydner {ZATW, xviii. 120): nin: nx k''x=' the man ofthe Jahwe
sign' (v. ^5) ; Gu. ni^xnx B''N = *a man whom I desire.'
3. D'D' fpo] After some time, which may be longer (i Sa. 29^) or
shorter (24"-^). To take D'D' in the definite sense of 'year' (i Sa. iî 2^»
— ——
shows that the 'gift-theory' of sacrifice {JRSr, 392ff.) was

fully established in the age when the narrative originated.
of the fndt of the ground] Fruit in its natural state was '
'
offered at Carthage, and was probably admitted by the

Hebrews in ancient times." **The Carthaginian fruit-
offering consisted of a branch bearing fruit, ... it seems
to be clear that the fruit was offered at the altar, and . . .
"
this,no doubt, is the original sense of the Hebrew rite also
(RS^y 221 and n. 3). Cain's offering is thus analogous to

23I6. i9 3422. 26^
the first-fruits (OniSS: Ex. Nu. 1320 etc.) of
Heb. ritual ; and it is arbitrary to suppose that his fault
lay in not selecting the best of what he had for God. — 4.
Abel's offering consisted of the firstlings of his flock namely ^
(see G-K. § 154 «, iV; i {h)) of their fat-pieces'] cf. Nu. 18^^.
Certain fat portions of the victim were in ancient ritual
reserved for the deity, and might not be eaten (i Sa. 2^^ etc. :
for Levitical details, see Dri.- White, Lev.^ Polychr. Bible,
pp. 4, 65). —4b, 5a. How did Yah we signify His acceptance
of the one offering and rejection of the other? It is
20^ etc.) is unnecessary, though not altogether unnatural (lEz. al.).
N'3n] the ritual use is well established: Lv. 2^^ Is. i^^ Jer. 17^ etc.
— nnjp : Ar. vtinhat — 'gift,' 'loan': J manaha.* On the uses of the
word, see Dri. DB^
iii. 587b. In sacrificial terminology there are
perhaps three senses to be distinguished (1) Sacrifice in general, con- :
ceived as a tribute or propitiatory present to the deity, Nu. 16^'', Ju. 6^',
I Sa. 2"-
29 2619, Is. i^^ Zeph. 3^", Ps. 968 etc.
(2) The conjunction of nnjD
and n3.] (i Sa. 2^^ 3^*, Is. 19^^ Am. 5^^ etc.) may show that it denotes
vegetable as distinct from animal oblations (see RS^, 217, 236). (3) In
P and late writings generally it is restricted to cereal offerings Ex. 30^ :
Nu. 18^ etc. Whether the wider or the more restricted meaning be the
older it is difficult to say.— 4. in?^npi] On Meth., see G-K. § 16 d. We
might point as sing, of the noun (in^^n, Lv. 8^^- ^ G-K. § 91 c) but ux ; ;
has scriptio plena of the pi. jn'aSnm. j;b"i] ffi koX iiriSev (in v.^ irpociffx^v) ;
Aq. iireKkldr] 2. iripcpdr) 0. iveirvpiaev (see above)

; ; ; 6 S«5/). evddKijffev ;
F respexit % ;
- > *^
^ 1 1© ;
®° " mp Kiy^ "i^^' There is no exact parallel
to the meaning here ; the nearest is Ex. 5^ (* look away [from their tasks]
to' idle words). — 5. mn] in Heb. always of mental heat (anger); ffi
* Some, however, derive it from nn3=* direct' and Hommel {AHT^ ;
322) cites a Sabsean inscr. where tanahhayat (V conj.) is used of offering

a sacrifice (see Lagrange, Etudes, 250). If this be correct, what was
said above about the *
gift theory '
would fall to the ground.
IV. 4, 5 I05
commonly answered (in accordance with Lv. 9^*, i Ki. 18^

etc.), that fire descended from heaven and consumed Abel's
offering (0. Ra. lEz. De. al.). Others (Di. Gu.) think
more vaguely of some technical sign, e.g, the manner in
which the smoke ascended (Ew. Str.) while Calv. supposes ;
that Cain inferred the truth from the subsequent course of

God's providence. But these conjectures overlook the strong
anthropomorphism of the description one might as well ask :
how Adam knew that he was expelled from the garden (3^^).
Perhaps the likeliest analogy is the acceptance of Gideon's
sacrifice by the Angel of Yahwe (Ju. 6^^). Why was the —
one sacrifice accepted and not the other ? The distinction
must lie either (a) in the disposition of the brothers (so
nearly all comm.), or [h) in the material of the sacrifice (Tu.).
In favour of {a) it is pointed out that in each case the
personality of the worshipper is mentioned before the gift.
But since the reason is not stated, it must be presumed to

be one which the first hearers would understand for them-
selves and they could hardly understand that Cain, apart
;
from his occupation and sacrifice, was less acceptable to

God than Abel. On the other hand, they would readily
perceive that the material of Cain's offering was not in
accordance with primitive Semitic ideas of sacrifice (see
RS^, Lect. VIII.).
From is not expressly mentioned, it has been
the fact that the altar
inferred that sacrifice here regarded as belonging- to the established
is
order of things (Sta. al.). But the whole manner of the narration
suggests rather that the incident is conceived as the initiation of
sacrifice, —
the first spontaneous expression of religious feeling in
cultus.* If that impression be sound, it follows also that the narrative
proceeds on a theory of sacrifice the idea, viz., that animal sacrifice
:
alone is acceptable to Yahwe. It is true that we cannot go back to
wrongly Ai5ir77<rej' ; so <S. On impers. const., see G-K. § 1446 ; cf.

,830.32 2,36 2^7^ Nu^ ,615 gtc. The word is not used by P.— For h^\ %
has -, .;V>n/j (lit. 'became black').
* It may be a mere coincidence that in Philo Byblius the institution

of animal sacrifice occurs in a legend of two brothers who quarrelled
{Pr. Ev. i. lo). Kittel {Studien zur hebr. Archdol. 103^) suggests that
our narrative may go back to a time prior to the introduction of the
fire-offering and the altar.
:
a stage of Heb. ritual when vegetable offerings were excluded; but

such sacrifices must have been introduced after the adoption of agri-
cultural life and it is quite conceivable that in the early days of the
;
settlement in Canaan the view was maintained among the Israelites

that the animal offerings of their nomadic religion were superior to
the vegetable offerings made to the Canaanite Baals. Behind this may
lie (as Gu. thinks) the idea that pastoral life as a whole is
more pleasing
to Yahwe than husbandry.
5b. Cain's feeling is a mixture of anger {it became very

3I2).
hot to him) and dejection {his face fell cf. Jb. 29^^, Jer. '.
This does not imply that his previous state of mind had
been bad (Di. al.). In tracing Cain's sin to a disturbance
of his religious relation to God, the narrator shows his
profound knowledge of the human heart.
6-12. Warning, murder, and sentence.— 7. The point
of the remonstrance obviously is that the cause of Cain's
dissatisfaction lies in himself, but whether in his general
temper or in his defective sacrifice can no longer be made
7. The difficuhies of the present texVare 'Uhe curt and ambiguous

expression(tTS?^^ further, theuseôf' nsan as masc, then the whole tenor
ofThe sentence, If thou doest not well . . finally, the exact and yet
. ;
3^8 " (Ols. MBBA,

incongruous parallelism of the second half-verse with
1870, 380).— As regards ^*, the main lines of interpretation
are these
(i) The inf. ni^v may be complementary to 3'a'n as a relative vh.JG-K.
''& mustâvFThe]ênse__of_loflfer^ sacrifice
§ 120, i), in which case
(cf. 43^, Ezk. 20^^). So (a) (& oiiK ihv opdQs irpoffeviyKrjiy dpdQs de fi^
dUXrjs, TJfjLapres (reading nD^Jor n);|s^, and pointing the next

; r]avxa<rov
two words PI nN9ri)=' Is it ndfso— if thou offerest rightly, but dost not
!
cuF in pieces rightly, thou hast sinned ? Be still Ball strangely '
follows this fantastic rendering, seemingly oblivious of the fact that

nnj (cf. Ex. 29", Lv. i«- ^S i Ki. iS^s-^^ etc.)— for which he needlessly
substitutes nng (15^")—has no sense as applied to a fruit-offering.— (6)
"
Somewhat similar is a view approved by Bu. as " vollig befriedigend
{Urg. 204 f.): 'Whether thou make thine offering costly or not, at the
door,' etc. ['Whether thou offerest correctly or not,' would be the
safer rendering].— (2) The inf. may be taken as compressed apod.,
_and 'n as an independent vK^^ do well' (as often), "v might then
''^
express the idea of («) elevation of counten ance ( =£^3 cf. Jb. ii^^ :
,
22^6) J If thou doest well, shall tFere "not belMIhg up?' etcr(so Tu.
:
Ew. De. Di. Dri. al.); or (6) acceptance ('d "vf as Gn. 1921, 2 Ki. 3^^
Mai. i8- 9) : so Aq. (dpô-eis), 0. {UKTbv\ % (Z\\nO), U {recipies) ; or
(c)forgiveness (as Gn. 50", Ex. 32^2) so S. (d^Tjaw), W^ Jer. and .
recently Ho. Of these renderings 2 {a) or i {b) are perhaps the most
—
IV. 5-8 I07
out. Every attempt to extract a meaning from the v. is

more or less of a tour de force^ and it is nearly certain that
the obscurity is due to deep-seated textual corruption [v.i.).
— 8. And Cain said] "i^lj never being quite synonymous
with "la'n, the sentence is incomplete the missing virords,:
Let us go to the fields must be supplied from Vns. see below ;
(so Ew. Di. Dri. al.). That Cain, as a first step towards
reconciliation, communicated to Abel the warning he had
just received (Tu. al.), is perhaps possible grammatically, but
psychologically is altogether improbable. thefield\ the open
country (see on 2^), where they were safe from observation
satisfying, though both are cumbered with the unnatural metaphor of

sin as a wild beast couching at the door (of what?), and the harsh
discord of gender. The latter is not fairly to be got rid of by taking
{'gn as a noun (' sin is at the door, a lurker Ew. al.), though no doubt
' :
it might be removed by a change of text. Of the image itself the best

explanation would be that of Ho,, who regards pT as a technical
expression for unforgiven sin (cf. Dt. 29^^). Jewish interpreters explain
it of the evil impulse in man (yin lif:), and most Christians similarly of
"^ being regarded
the overmastering or seductive power of sin ; as
a summons to Cain to subdue his evil passions. 7b reads smoothly —
enough by itself, but cgnnectsjaadly wk p/CCedes. The ante-
cedent to the pron. suff. is usually taken to be Sin personified as a wild
beast, or less commonly (Calv. al.) Abel, the object of Cain's envy.
Tjie word whether it be understood of the
nj5^»^]j_js_equally unsuitable,
wild beast's eagerness for its prey or the deference due from a younger
brother to an older ;. and thf! alterjaative njj^ of ffi and ^ (see on 3^^)
is no .better. The verbal resemblance to 3^^'' is itself suspicious a ;
facetious parody of the language of a predecessor is not to be attributed

to any early writer. HJs more likely that the eye of a copyist had
wandered to 3^^ in the adjacent column, and that.the erroneous words
were afterwarSs adjusted to their present context in % the sufF. are :
actually reversed'fj^r:) J^LmJI OOIO (JlZoX \^c^l2 Aj]).— The

paraphrase of W^ affords no help, and the textual confusion is probably
irremediable ; tentative emendations like those of Gu. (p. 38) are of no
avail, Che. TBI, 105, would remove v.'^ as a gloss, and make ^
(reading 'hk) Cain's answer to v.^
8. TDK, in the sense of * speak,' 'converse' (2 Ch. 32^^), is excessively
rare and late the only instance in early Heb. is apparently Ex. 19-^,
:
where the context has been broken by a change of document. It might

mean 'mention' (as 43^ etc), but in that case the obj. must be indi-
cated. Usually it is followed, like Eng. say,' by the actual words
*
spoken. Hence niBn rta^j is to be supplied with jiud&SU, but not Aq.
(Tu. De. see the scholia in Field) a Pisqa in some Heb. MSS, though
: :
— —
(i Ki. 11^^). —
9* Yahwe opens the inquisition, as in 3^, with
a question, which Cain, unlike Adam, answers with a

defiant repudiation of responsibility. It is impossible to
doubt that here the writer has the earlier scene before his
mind, and consciously depicts a terrible advance in the
power of sin. — 10. Hark! Thy brother^ s blood is crying to
me^ etc.\ PV^ denotes strictly the cry for help, and specially
for redress or vengeance (Ex. 22^^-^^, Ju. 4^, Ps. 107^*^
etc.). The idea that blood exposed on the ground thus
clamours for vengeance is persistently vivid in the OT
16I8, Is. 2621, Ezk. 247-8, 2 Ki. 926) see RS^, a,\f. In
(Jb. :
this passage we have more than a mere metaphor, for

it is the blood which is represented as drawing Yahwe's
attention to the crime of Cain. II. And now cursed art
thou from (off) the ground\ i.e.^ not the earth's surface, but
the cultivated ground and see on 2^). To restrict
(cf. v.^*,
it to the soil of Palestine Sta. Ho.) goes beyond the

(We.
necessities of the case. which has opened her mouthy etc.]
a personification of the ground similar to that of Sheol in
Is. 5!^ (cf. Nu. t6^2)^ i-jie idea cannot be that the earth
is a monster gr6edy of blood it seems rather akin to the ;
primitive superstition of a physical infection or poisoning

of the soil, and through it of the murderer, by the shed
blood (see Miss Harrison, Prolegomena^ 219 ff.). The
ordinary OT conception is that the blood remains un-
covered [o-i. Eurip. Electra^ 318 f.). The relation of the
two notions is obscure. 12. The curse —
from off the '
ground' has two sides: (i) The ground will no longer yield
its strength (Jb. 31^^) to the murderer, so that even if he
wished he will be unable to resume his husbandry ; and
not recognised by the Mass., supports this view of the text. To emend
nb^'l (Ols. al.) or ion, ns'i (Gk.) is less satisfactory. 9, -x] ux -tn. 10. — —
On the interjectional use of Vip, see G-K. § 146 h No. Mand. Gr. p. 482. ;
— D'py,s] juu. ^)))i., ag-reeing with Vip (?). — II. fP . . . nnx] pregnant constr.,
G-K. § \\'^Xyy,ff. This sense of |D is more accurately expressed by
'?yp in v.", but is quite common (cf. esp. 27'^). Other renderings, as
frcym (indicating the direction from which the curse comes) or hy^ are
less appropriate ; and the compar. more than is impossible. 12. fjph] —
juss. form with ti"? (G-K. § 109 £?, A ; Dav. §§ 63, R. 3, 66, R. 6) ; fol-
—
IV. 9-14 I09
(2) he is to be a vagrant and wanderer in the earth. The

second is the negative consequence of the
and need first,
not be regarded as a separate curse, or a symbol of the

inward unrest which springs from a guilty conscience.
13-16. Mitigation of Cain's punishment. 13. My —
punishment is too great to he borne\ So the plea of Cain is
understood by all modern authorities. The older rendering :
my guilt is too great to he some ways

forgiven (which is in
preferable), is abandoned because the sequel shows that
Cain's reflexions run on the thought of suffering and not of
sin see below.
; —
14. from Thy face 1 shall he hidden] This
anguished cry of Cain has received scant sympathy at the
hands of comm. (except Gu.). Like that of Esau in 27^*,
itreveals him as one who had blindly striven for a spiritual
—
good, as a man not wholly bad who had sought the favour
of God with the passionate determination of an ill-regulated
nature and missed it : one to whom banishment from the
divine presence is a distinct Ingredient In his cup of misery.
— every one that fndeth me<, etc.] The object of Cain's dread
is hardly the vengeance of the slain man's kinsmen (so
nearly comm.); but rather the lawless state of things
all
in the desert, where any one's life may be taken with

impunity (Gu.). That the words Imply a diffusion of the
human race is an incongruity on either view, and is one of
many indications that the Cain of the original story was
not the son of the first man.
This expostulation of Cain, with its rapid grasp of the situation,
Hg^hts up some aspects of the historic background of the legend, (i) It
lowed by inf. without h (G-K. § 114 m). li] yz] an alliteration, as in i*.
Best rendered in anon. Gr. Vns. (Field) a-aXevSfievos Kal aKaTaaTarCbv ;

:
U vagus et profugus ffi (incorrectly) arivuv Kal Tpifiwv.

;
13. On |iv ( V gaway = go astray *

Dri. Sam. i34f ) in the sense of
' :
punishment of sin, see the passages cited in BDB, s.v. 3. 'y xt?:, in
the sense of *bear guilt,' seems peculiar to P and Ezk, elsewhere it ;
means to 'pardon iniquity' (Ex. 34'^, Nu. 14^^, Ho. 14^, Mic. 7^8, Ps. 32^).
This consideration is not decisive ; but there is something to be said
for the consensus of anc. Vns. (ffi dcpedrjpai ; U
veniam merear^ etc.) in
favour of the second interpretation, which might be retained without
detriment to the sense if the sentence could be read as a question.
14. 'Ok] instead of suff. is unlike J. In the next v. ink after inf. was
—
no CAIN AND ABEL (j)
is assumed that Yahwe's presence is confined to the cultivated land ;
in other words, that He is the God of settled life, agricultural and

pastoral. To conclude, however, that He is the God of Canaan in
particular (cf. i Sa. 26^^), is perhaps an over-hasty inference. (2) The
reign of right is coextensive with Yahwe's sphere of influence : the
outer desert is the abode of lawlessness justice does not exist, and
;
human life is cheap. That Cain, the convicted murderer, should use
this plea will not appear strange if we remember the conditions under
which such narratives arose.
15. What follows must be understood as a divinely

appointed amelioration of Cain's lot: although he is not
restored to the amenities of civilised life, Yahwe grants
him a special protection, suited to his vagrant existence,
against indiscriminate homicide. kills Kayin (or — Whoso
*
whenever any one kills K '), it (the murder) shall he avenged
sevenfold] by the slaughter of seven members of the
murderer's clan. See below. appointed a sign for Kayin]
or set a mark on K. The former is the more obvious
rendering of the words but the latter has analogies, and
;
is demanded by the context.
The idea that the sign is a pledge given once for all of the truth of
Yahwe's promise, after the analogy of the prophetic nix, is certainly
consistent with the phrase ^ . D'^ : cf. e.g. Ex. 1$^'', Jos. 24^^ with
. .
Ex. io2 etc. So some authorities in Ber. R., lEz. Tu. al. But Ex. 4"*
proves that it may
also be something attached to the person of Cain
(Calv. Ber. R.^ De. and most) and that niN may denote a mark appears
;
from Ex. 13^' ^^ etc. Since the sign is to serve as a warning to all and
sundry who might attempt the life of Cain, it is obvious that the second
view alone meets the requirements of the case we must think of some- :
thing about Cain, visible to all the world, marking him out as one
whose death would be avenged sevenfold. Its purpose is protective
and not penal that it brands him as a murderer is a natural but
:
—
mistaken idea. It is to be observed that in this part of the narrative
Kayin is no longer a personal but a collective name. The clause
'p ai'n-Va (not Jhq; 'P, or "l^^^) has frequentative force (exx. below), imply-
'••
ing that the act might be repeated many times on members of the tribe
Kayin similarly the sevenfold vengeance assumes a kin - circle to
:
which the murderer belongs. See, further, p. 112.
necessary to avoid confusion between subj. and obj. 15. J?^] o^x oiJrws —
(S20) implies J3 t^"? so ,SU but this would require to be followed
: ;
3I1
by '?.— 'p 3in-'?|] see G-K. § 116 w, cf. Ex. i2^\ Nu. 3530, i Sa. 21^
etc.— D|T] The subj. might be pp (as v. 2^) or (more probably) impers.
(Ex. 21^^), certainly not the murderer of Cain. D^njî?'] = '7 times': —
Q_K. § 134 r. Vns. (& eTrra iKdiKovfieva Trapa\6a'ei Aq. c7rra7rXa<rfws
: ;
—
IV. 15, i6 III
l6. and dwelt in the land of Ndd\ The vb. '^^\ is not
necessarily inconsistent with nomadic life, as Sta. alleges
(see Gn. 13^^, i Ch. 5^^ etc.). It is uncertain whether the
name *li3 is traditional (We. Gu.), or was coined from the

participle "^5 = * land of wandering" ' (so most) ; at all events
it cannot be geographically identified. If the lastwords
py riDlp belong to the original narrative, it would be
natural to regard Kayin as representative of the nomads
of Central Asia (Knob, al.); but the phrase may have been
added by a redactor to bring the episode into connexion
with the account of the Fall.
The Origin of the Cain Legend. The exposition of 4^"^^ would be —

incomplete without some account of recent speculations regarding- the
historical or ethnological situation out of which the legend arose. The
tendency of opinion has been to affirm with increasing distinctness the
view that the narrative "embodies the old Hebrew conception of
the lawless nomad life, where only the blood-feud prevents the wanderer
*
in the desert from falling a victim to the first man who meets him."
A subordinate point, on which undue stress is commonly laid, is the
identity of Cain with the nomadic tribe of the Kenites. These ideas,
first propounded by Ew.,t adopted by We., J and (in part) by Rob.
Sm.,§ have been worked up by Sta., in his instructive essay on 'The

sign of Cain,' into a complete theory, in which what may be called
II
the nomadic motive is treated as the clue to the significance of every

characteristic feature of the popular legend lying at the basis of the
narrative. Although the questions involved are too numerous to be
fully dealt with here, it is necessary to consider those points in the
argument which bear more directly on the original meaning of vv.^"^^.
I. That the figure of Cain represents some phase of nomadic life
may be regarded as certain. We have seen (p. no) that in v.^^^* the
name Cain has a collective sense and every descriptive touch in these ;
closing vv. is characteristic of desert life. His expulsion from the nonx
and the phrase nJi yj, express (though not by any means necessarily,
iKSiKrjdiâeTai ; S. e/356/iws iKSlKijîv duicrei ; 0. 5i' e^Sofxddos iKdiKTâei ;
U septuplum punietur\ VijÂj (Sn a JP y-K» ^T^ ynsn' jm ^.v^vh

Si ;
n'j'D (hence the idea that Cain was killed by Lamech the 7th from
Adam [see on v.^'*]).— 16. nu] aju. no, ffir Nai'5 (n'J?) with variants (see
Nestle, MM, p. 9). — 2GU {habitavit profugus in terra) [2E?] take
the word as a participle ; but the order of words forbids this. nmp] —
see on 2^\ * In front of E.' and 'East of E.' would here be the same
thing (324).
* Smith, KM^y 251. + JBB W, vi. 5 flF. % Comp. 2 1 o f.

§ I.e. Ak. Reden, 229-73. ^r*
— ;
112 ORIGIN OF THE
see below) the fundamental fact that his descendants are doomed to
wander in the uncultivated regions beyond the pale of civilisation. The
vengeance which protects him is the self-acting law of blood-revenge,
that 'salutary institution '
which, in the opinion of Burckhardt, has done
more than anything else to preserve the Bedouin tribes from mutual
extermination.* The sign which Yahwe puts on him is most naturally
explained as the ^^ shart or tribal mark which every man bore in his
person, and without which the ancient form of blood-feud, as the affair
of a whole stock and not of near relations alone, could hardly have been
worked, "t And the fact that this kind of existence is traced to the
operation of a hereditary curse embodies the feeling of a settled
agricultural or pastoral community with regard to the turbulent and
poverty-stricken life of the desert.
2. While this is true, the narrative cannot be regarded as expressing
reprobation of every form of nomadism known to the Hebrews. A dis-
paraging estimate of Bedouin life as a whole is, no doubt, conceivable
on the part of the settled Israelites (cf. Gn. \G^^ but Cain is hardly
;
the symbol of that estimate, (i) The ordinary Bedouin could not be
described as fugitives and vagabonds in the earth

' their movements
'
:
are restricted to definite areas of the desert, and are hardly less
monotonous than the routine of husbandry.^ (2) The full Bedouin are
breeders of camels, the half-nomads of sheep and goats and both live ;
mainly on the produce of their flocks and herds (see Meyer, INS, 303 ff,).
But to suppose Cain to exemplify the latter mode of life is inconsistent
with the narrative, for sheep-rearing is the distinctive profession of Abel
and it is hardly conceivable that Hebrew legend was so ignorant of
the proud spirit of the full Bedouin as to describe them as degraded
agriculturists. If Cain be the type of any permanent occupation at all,
it must be one lower than agriculture and pasturage i.e. he must ;
stand for some of those rude tribes which subsist by hunting or robbery.
(3) It is unlikely that a rule of
sevenfold revenge was generally observed
amongst Semitic nomads in OT times. Among the modern Arabs the
law of the blood-feud is a life for a life it is only under circumstances
:
of extreme provocation that a twofold revenge is permissible. We are,

therefore, led to think of Cain as the impersonation of an inferior race
of nomads, maintaining a miserable existence by the chase, and
practising a peculiarly ferocious form of blood-feud. —
The view thus
suggested of the fate of Cain finds a partial illustration in the picture
* Bedouins and WahabySy 148.— The meaning is that the certainty
of retaliation acts as a check on the warlike tribesmen, and renders

their fiercest conflicts nearly bloodless.
t Smith, I.e. —
It may be explained that at present the kindred group
for the purpose of the blood-feud consists of all those whose lineage
goes back to a common ancestor in the fifth generation. There are
still certain tribes, however, who are greatly feared because they
are
said to 'strike sideways' ; i.e. they retaliate upon any member of the
murderer's tribe whether innocent or guilty. See Burck. 149 ff., 320 f.
+ No. EBy 130.
—
CAIN LEGEND II3
g-Iven by Burck. and Doughty of a group of low-caste tribes called

Solubba or Sleyb. These people live partly by hunting, partly by
coarse smith-work and other gipsy labour in the Arab encampments ;
they are forbidden by their patriarch to be cattle-keepers, and have

no property save a few asses they are excluded from fellowship and
;
Intermarriage with the regular Bedouin, though on friendly terms with

them and they are the only tribes that are free of the Arabian deserts
;
to travel where they will, ranging practically over the whole peninsula
from Syria to Yemen. It is, perhaps, of less significance that they
sometimes speak of themselves as decayed Bedouin, and point out the
ruins of the villages where their ancestors dwelt as owners of camels
and flocks.* The name pp, signifying 'smith' (p. 102), would be a
suitable eponym for such degraded nomads. The one point in which
the analogy absolutely fails is that tribes so circumstanced could not
afford to practise the stringent rule of blood-revenge indicated by v.^^
It thus appears that the known conditions of Arabian nomadism present
no exact parallel to the figure of Cain. To carry back the origin of
the legend to pre-historic times would destroy the raison d'etre of Sta.'s
hypothesis, which seeks to deduce everything from definite historical
relations at the same time it may be the only course by which the theory
:
can be freed from certain inconsistencies with which it is encumbered.f

3. The kernel of Sta.'s argument is the attractive combination of
Cain the fratricide with the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites.:}: In
historical times the Kenites appear to have been pastoral nomads (Ex.
2i6ff.
^1) frequenting the deserts south of Judah (i Sa. 27^° 30^^), and (in
some of their branches) clinging tenaciously to their ancestral manner
of life (Ju. 411- " with i Ch. 2^5). From the fact that
524, Jer. 35' cpd.
they are found associated now with Israel (Ju. i^^ etc.), now with
Amalek (Nu. 2^^^', i Sa. 15^), and now with Midian (Nu. 10-^), Sta.
infers that they were a numerically weak tribe of the second rank and
;
from the name, that they were smiths. The latter character, however,
would imply that they were pariahs, and of that there is no evidence
whatever. Nor is there any indication that the Kenites exercised a
more rigorous blood-feud than other Semites indeed, it seems an :
inconsistency in Sta.'s position that he regards the Kenites as at once

distinguished by reckless bravery in the vindication of the tribal honour,
and at the same time too feeble to maintain their independence without
the aid of stronger tribes. There is, in short, nothing to show that the
ênites were anything but typical Bedouin and all the objections to
;
* 'Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 280 fF.

Burck. 14 f. ;
t An might be found in the account given by

interesting parallel
Merker {Die Masai, p. 306 ff.) of the smiths (0/ konont) among the
Masai of East Africa. Apart from the question of the origin of the
Masai, it is quite possible that these African nomads present a truer
picture of the conditions of primitive Semitic life than the Arabs of the
present day. See also Andree, Ethjiogr. Parall. u. Vergl. (1878), i56fF.
X The tribe is called jip in Nu. 24^2, Ju. 4^^ elsewhere the gentilic 'rp
;
is used (in i Ch. 2^^ DTP).
8
f
114 THE CAIN LEGEND

associating Cain with the higher levels of nomadism apply with full
force to his identification with this particular tribe. When we consider,
further, that the Kenites are nearly everywhere on friendly terms with
Israel, and that they seem to have cherished the most ardent attachment
to Yahwism, it becomes almost incredible that they should have been
conceived as resting under a special curse.
4. It is very doubtful if any form of the nomadic or Kenite theory
can account for the rise of the legend as a whole. The evidence
on which it rests is drawn almost exclusively from vv.^^'^^ Sta.
justifies his extension of the theory to the incident of the murder by the
analogy of those temporary alliances between Bedouin and peasants
in which the settled society purchases immunity from extortion by the
payment of a fixed tribute to the nomads (cf. i Sa. 2^^-). This relation
isspoken of as a brotherhood, the tributary party figuring as the sister
of the Bedouin tribe. The murder of Abel is thus resolved into the
massacre of a settled pastoral people by a Bedouin tribe which had been
on terms of formal friendship with it. But the analogy is hardly con-
vincing. It would amount to this that certain nomads were punished
:
for a crime by being transformed into nomads the fact that Cain was
:
previously a husbandman is left unexplained. —

Gu., with more consist-
ency, finds in the narrative a vague reminiscence of an actual (prehis-
toric) event, —the extermination of a pastoral tribe by a neighbouring
agricultural tribe, in consequence of which the latter were driven from
their settlements and lived as outlaws in the wilderness. Such changes
of fortune must have been common in early times on the border-land
between civilisation and savagery * and Gu. 's view has the advantage
;
over Sta.'s that it makes a difference of sacrificial ritual an intelligible

factor in the quarrel (see p. 105 f.). But the process of extracting history
from legend is always precarious and in this case the motive of indi-
;
vidual blood-guilt appears too prominent to be regarded as a secondary

interest of the narrative.
The truth is that in the present form of the story the figure of Cain
represents a fusion of several distinct types, of which it is difficult to
single out any one as the central idea of the legend, (i) He is the
originator of agriculture (v.^). (2) He is the founder of sacrifice, and
(as the foil to his brother Abel) exhibits the idea that vegetable offer-
ings alone are not acceptable to Yahwe (see on v.^). (3) He is the
individual murderer (or rather shedder of kindred blood) pursued by the
curse, like the Orestes, Alcmseon, Bellerophon, etc., of Greek legend
Up to V.12 that motive not only is sufficient, but is the only
(v.sff-).
one naturally suggested to the mind the expression nji yi being merely
:
the negative aspect of the curse which drives him from the ground.
* Instances in Merker, Die Masai, pp. 3, 7, 8, 14, 328, etc.
t For a Semitic parallel to this conception of Cain, comp. Doughty's

description of the wretched Harb Bedouin who had accidentally slain
his antagonist in a wrestling match " None accused Aly nevertheless
: ;
the mesquin fled for his life and he has gone ever since thus armed,
;
" {Ar. Des.

lest the kindred of the deceased finding him should kill him
ii. 293, cited by Stade).
— —
IV. 17-24 115
(4) Lastly, in vv.^^"^" he is the representative of the nomad tribes of

the desert, as viewed from the standpoint of settled and orderly civilisa-
tion. Ewald pointed out the significant circumstance, that at the
beginning of the second age of the world's history we find the
*
'
counterparts of Abel and Cain in the shepherd Jabal and the smith
Tubal-Cain (v.^°^-). It seems probable that some connexion exists
between the two pairs of brothers in other words, that the story of
:
Cain and Abel embodies a variation of the tradition which assigned the
origin of cattle-breeding and metal-working to two sons of Lamech.
But to resolve the composite legend into its primary elements, and
assign each to its original source, is a task obviously beyond the
resources of criticism.
IV. 17-24. The line of Cain,
This genealogy, unlike that of P in ch. 5, is not a mere

list of names, but is compiled with the view of showing the
origin of the principal arts and institutions of civilised
life.* These are Husbandry (v.^ see above), city-life (^^),
: ;
[polygamy (^^)?], pastoral nomadism, music and metal-

working (20-22j^ The Song of Lamech (^^^-j may signalise
an appalling development of the spirit of blood-revenge,
which could hardly be considered an advance in culture but ;
the connexion of these vv. with the genealogy is doubtful.

It has commonly been held that the passage involves a
pessimistic estimate of human civilisation, as a record of

progressive degeneracy and increasing alienation from God.
That is probably true of the compiler who placed the section
account of the Fall, and incorporated the Song of
after the
Lamech, which could hardly fail to strike the Hebrew mind
as an exhibition of depravity. human
In itself, however,
the genealogy contains no moral judgment on the facts
recorded. The names have no sinister significance poly- ;
gamy (though a declension from the ideal of 2'^^) is not

generally condemned in the OT (Dt. 21^^); and even the
song of Lamech (which is older than the genealogy) implies
no condemnation of the reckless and bloodthirsty valour
—
which it celebrates. The institutions enumerated are clearly
* Gu., however (p. 47), considers the archaeological notices to be

insertions in the genealogy, and treats them as of a piece with the
similar notices in 2^^ 3'* î* '^.
—
Il6 CAINITE GENEALOGY (j)
those existing in the writer's own day ; hence the passage

does not contemplate a rupture of the continuity of develop-
ment by a cataclysm like the Flood. That the representa-
tion involves a series of anachronisms, and is not historical,
requires no proof (see Dri. Gen. 68). — On the relation of the
section to other parts of the ch., see p. 98 above : on some
further critical questions, see the concluding Note (p. 122 ff.).
17. Enoch and the building of the first city. The —

question where Cain got his wife is duly answered in
Juh. iv. 1,9: she was his sister, and her name was Awdn. ^
For other traditions, see Marmorstein, Die Nanien der

*
Schwestern Kains u. Abels,^ etc., ZATW, xxv. 141 ff. and

he became a city-hnilder\ So the clause is rightly rendered
by De. Bu. Ho. Gu. al. (cf. 2i20b, ju. 1621, 2 Ki. 155).
The idea that he happened to be engaged in the building
of a city when his son was born would probably have been
expressed otherwise, and is itself a little unnatural.
That ppis the subj. of 'n;i only appears from the phrase 13? D?'? towards
the end. Bu. (120 ff.) conjectures that the original text was io-f?, making
Enoch himself the builder of the city called after him (so Ho.). The
emendation is plausible it avoids the ascription to Cain of two steps in
:
civilisation- agriculture and city-building ; and it satisfies a natural

expectation that after the mention of Enoch we should hear what he
—
became, not what his father became after his birth, especially when
the subj. of the immediately preceding vbs. is Cain's wife. But the
difficulty of accounting for the present text is a serious objection, the
motive suggested by Bu. (123) being far-fetched and improbable. The —
incongruity between this notice and vv.^^"^^ has already been mentioned
(p. 100). Lenormant's examples of the mythical connexion of city-building
with fratricide [Origines^, i. 141 ff.) are not to the point the difficulty is
;
not that the first city was founded by a murderer, but by a nomad. More
relevant would be the instances of cities originating in hordes of out-
laws, collected by Frazer, as parallels to the peopling of Rome {Fort.
Rev. 1899, Apr., 650-4). But the anomaly is wholly due to composition
of sources the Cain of the genealogy was neither a nomad nor a
:
It has been proposed (Ho. Gu.) to remove as an addition

^''^
fratricide.
to the genealogy, on the ground that no intelligent writer would put
17. On I'Ti, see on v.^. —

The vb. TjJn appears from Ar. kanaka to be a
denom. from hanak (Heb. 'nn), and means to rub the palate of a new-born
child with chewed dates: hence trop. 'to initiate' (Lane, s.v. We. ;
Heid. 173). In Heb. it means to 'dedicate' or 'inaugurate' a house,

etc. (Dt. 2o5, I Ki. 8«3: of. r\^v^^, Nu. 7", Neh. \2^ etc.); and also to
* teach'
(Pr. 22^). See, further, on 5^^
:
IV. 17, i8 117
city-building- before cattle-rearing- but the Phoenician tradition is full

;
of such anachronisms, and shows how little they influenced the reasoning
of ancient genealogists. —
The name îjq occurs (besides S^^"'", i Ch. 1^)
as that of a Midianite tribe in 25-* (i Ch. i^^), and of a Reubenite clan
in 46^ (Ex. 6", Nu. 26", i Ch. 5^). It is also said that l^n is a Sabaean
tribal name which has some importance in view of the
(G-B.^^ 5.7;.),*
fact that I^p (s^*^") is the name

of a Sabaean deity. As the name of a
city, the word would suggest to the Heb. mind the thought of initia- '
tion' {v.t.). The city Tun cannot be identified. The older conjectures
are given by Di. (p. 99) Sayce {ZKF, ii. 404 ; Hih. Led. 185) and ;
Cheyne {EB, 624 but see now TBI, 106) connect it with Unuk, the
;
ideographic name of the ancient Babylonian city of Erech,
18. The next four generations are a blank so far as any-

advance in civilisation Is concerned. The only question of
general interest is the relation of the names to those of
ch. 5.
On the first three names, see esp. Lagarde, Orietifalia^ ii. 33-38 ;
Bu. Urg. 123-9.
— ""Ty] ^
TatSaS ( = Ti'y), S "iTj; (the latter supported
by corresponds to Tj; in 5^^^*. The initial guttural, and the want
Philo),
of a Heb. etymology, would seem to indicate iTy as the older form which
has been Hebraized in TV but the conclusion is not certain. If the
;
root be connected with Ar. arada (which is doubtful in view of ffli's F),
^
the idea might be either 'fugitive' (Di. al.), or 'strength, hardness,

courage (Bu.). Sayce {ZKF, ii. 404) suggests an identification with
'
the Chaldean city Eridu Ho. with Tjj;;. in the Negeb (Ju. i^^ etc.).
; The —
next two names are probably (but not certainly see Gray, HPN, 164 f.) :
compounds with h^. The first is given by MT

in two forms, "^Nînp and
^K['];np. The variants of (& are reducible to three types, MairjK ('?N''na),
MaoutTjX ('?i<'inD), MoKeKerfK ( = '?x'?'?nD, 5^^^-). Lag. considers the last
original, though the first is the best attested. Adopting this form, we
may (with Bu.) point the Heb. '?X '^DO or *?« ".np=' God makes me live'
so virtually Philo airb fwiys deov, and Jer. ex vita Deus (cited by Lag.).
Both Mass. forms undoubtedly imply a bad sense: 'destroyed (or
smitten) of God (though the form
'
is absolutely un-Hebraic, see Dri. Sam.
14). — Vni^^hd is now commonly explained by Ass. mutu-sa-ili, 'Man of

Godj't though the relative Sa presents a difiiculty (Gray, I.e.). The
true (& reading is MadovaaXa. { = nhmTv;i, 5^^^-) lAadovaarfK occurs as a
—
correction in some MSS "rip^] again inexplicable from Heb. or even
;
Arabic. Sayce {Hib. Lecf. 186) and Hommel connect it with Lamga, a
Babylonian name of the moon-god, naturalised in S. Arabia. J
18. On ace. m with pass, see G-K. § 116 «, b. — n"?; in the sense of
•beget' is a sure mark of the style of J (see Ho. Einl. 99). — ?np] archaic
* Omitted in 13th edition.
t Lenorm. Orig."^ i. 262 f., Di. Bu. al. Che. EB, 625. It does not
appear that mutu-ia-ili occurs as an actual name.
J Hommel, AUisrael. Uberl, 117 n.: "Lamga ist ein babylonischer
—
Il8 CAINITE GENEALOGY (j)
19. The two wives of Lamech. No judgment is passed —

on Lamech's bigamy, and probably none was intended.
The notice may be due simply to the fact that the names of
the wives happened to be preserved in the song afterwards
quoted.
Of two female names by far the most attractive explanation is
the
that of Ew. {JBBW, vi. 17), that niy means Dawn (Ar. â-i'«, but fflr
—
has 'A5a), and n?v (fern, of 75{) Shadow, a relic of some nature-myth (cf.
Lenorm. Orig."^ 183 f.). Others (Ho.) take them as actual proper names
of inferior stocks incorporated in the tribe Lamech pointing- out that ;
7\-iV recurs in 36^^- as a Canaanite clan amalgamated with Esau. This

ethnographic theory, however, has very little foothold in the passage.
For other explanations, see Di. p. 100.
20-22. The sons of Lamech and their occupations.

At this point the genealogy breaks up into three branches,
Ew. thinks) a second age of the world. But
introducing (as
since nowhere continued, all we can say is that the three
it is
sons represent three permanent social divisions, and (we

must suppose) three modes of life that had some special
interest for the authors of the genealogy. On the significance
of this division, see at the close. —20. Yabal, son of 'Adah,
became the father {i.e. originator: '^ 3">) of tent- and cattle-
dwellers (v.i.)', i.e. of nomadic shepherds. ^î?P, however,
is a wider term than |i<V (v.^), including all kinds of cattle,
and even camels and asses (Ex. 9^). The whole Bedouin life
is thus assigned to Jabal as its progenitor. —21. Yuhal^ also a
nom. case (G-K. § 90 6) of an old Sem. word (also Egypt, according

to Erman) np='man' (male, husband, etc.) : cf. G-B. s.v.
20. 'ijjpp? Snk aty'] fflr oIkovvtcjv iv (TKT}vais KTrjvoTpb<p()}v, perhaps reading
napD 'Shn as in 2 Ch. 14^^ (so Ball). U {atque pastorum) takes naj?D as a
ptcp. 5 inserts « 1 oOj and CT^ nDi, before 'cattle'; similarly

- «
;
Kuenen proposed njpD napi. The zeugma is somewhat hard, but is

retained by most comm. for the sake of conformity with v.^^'-; G-K.
§ 117 66, ii8 g.—21. vnx DB')] cf. io25 (J) (i Ch. 7I8).— 'ui '3«] (& 6 Kara-
deltas ypoKT-qpiov Kal Kidapav.—'^Vi]}] iMÎ'S cithara etorgano\ Si J5A-»_D
|j_1^0 ;
^^ N2UN1 N113D (II
vhii). See Benzinger, Archceol.^, 237-246 ; We.
Psalms {Polychr. Bihle\ 2i9f., 222 f.; Riehm, Hd-wh. 10436". The ni33 is
Beiname des Sin daraus machten die Sabaer, mit volksetymologischer

;
Anlehnung an ihr Verbum lamaka (wahrsch. glanzen), einen Plural

Alm^ku."
—
IV. 19-22 I 19
son of 'Adah, is the father of all who handle lyre and pipe the ;
oldest and simplest musical instruments. These two occupa-

tions, representing the bright side of human existence, have
'Adah (the Dawn ?) as their mother recalling the classical ;
association of shepherds with music (see Lenorm. i. 207).

22. Equally suggestive is the combination of Tuhal-kdyin^ the
smith, and Nddmah ('pleasant'), as children of the dark
Zillah ; cf. the union of Hephaestos and Aphrodite in Greek
mythology (Di. al.). —The opening words of ^^ are corrupt.
We should expect : he hecame the father of every artificer in
brass and iron (see footnote). The persistent idea that
Tubal-cain was the inventor of weapons, Ber. R.^ Ra. and
most, which has led to a questionable interpretation of the
Song, has no foundation. He is simply the metal-worker,
certainly a stringed instrument, played with the hand (i Sa. 16^' etc.),
probably the lyre (Greek Kipvpa). The 3Jiy (associated with the ni33
in Jb. 21^2 30^^ : elsewhere only Ps. 150*) is some kind of wind instrument
(BE^—a, flute or reed-pipe, perhaps the Pan's pipe (avpiy^). 22. Nin dj] —
in genealogies (as here, 4^6 loî ig^^ 2220-24 [ju. g^^]) is characteristic of J.
— pp '?ain] (& GoiSeX- Kal ijv. Other Vns. have the compound name, and
on the whole it is probable that Kal ijv is a corruption of Kaip, although
—
the next cl. has Go^SeX alone. 'iJi iffdh] ffi Kai iivcrcpvpoKdiros, xaXêi>s xa^ôO
Kal ffib-qpov, "TB qui fuit malleator et faher in cuncta opera aer. et f.\ ^
To get any kind of sense from MT, it is necessary either (a) to take B'eS
(* sharpener or 'hammerer') in the sense of 'instructor'; or (5) take
'
tynh as neut. (* a hammerer of every cutting implement of,' etc.) or (c) ;
adopt the quaint construction (mentioned by Bu. 138) 'a hammerer of :
all (sorts of things), —

a (successful) artificer in bronze,' etc All these !
are unsatisfactory and neither the omission of "72 with ffi^ (Di.), nor the
;
insertion of '3« before it yields a tolerable text. Bu.'s emendation (i 39 ff.)

'131 t»ih ID*? '.Ti [for pp] is much too drastic, and stands or falls with his
utterly improbable theory that Lamech and not Tubal-cain was origin-
ally designated as the inventor of weapons. The error must lie in the
words sya"? pp, for which we should expect, '3n n\n Nin (Ols. Ball). The
difficulty is to account for the present text it Is easy to say that B'ti'?
:
and pp are glosses, but there is nothing in the v. to require a gloss, and
neither of these words would naturally have been used by a Heb. writer
for that purpose.
—
'?n3] The Semitic words for 'iron' (Ass. parziUu,
Aram. Vng, f-Hr^) Ar. farziV) have no Semitic etymology, and are
'
' p ?
probably borrowed from a foreign tongue. On the antiquity of iron in
W. Asia, see RIdgeway, Early Age of Gr. i. 616 ff.
I20 CAINITE GENEALOGY (j)
an occupation regarded by primitive peoples as a species of

black-art,* and by Semiticnomads held in contempt.
On names in these vv. see the interesting discussion of Lenorm.
the
Orig.^ ff, — The alliterations, Ydbdl
i. 192 — Ytibdl— Ttlhal^ are a feature
of legendary genealogies cf. Arab. Habil and Kabil, Shiddid and
:
Shaddad, Malik and Milkan, etc. (Lenorm. 192). '?3' {f&. 'Iw/3e\ •y]^) and
^nr ('lofâX) both suggest h'y (Heb. and Phoen.), which means primarily
'ram,' then 'ram's horn as a musical instrument (Ex. 19^^), and finally
'
'joyous music' (in On a sup-

the designation of the year of Jubilee).
posed connexion of ^y with "ân in the sense of 'herdsman,' see above,
p. 103.
—
'?3in is a Japhetic people famous in antiquity for metal-working
(see on 10^) and it is generally held that their heros eponymus sup-
;
plies the name of the founder of metallurgy here but the equation is ;
doubtful. A still more precarious combination with a word for smith

{tumdly dubalanza, etc.) in Somali and other East African dialects,
has been propounded by Merker {Die Masaiy 306). The compound ^3in
pp (written in Oriental MSS as one word) may mean either Tubal [the]
'
smith (in which case pp [we should expect yp^] is probably a gloss), or
'
'Tubal of (the family of) Cain.'t ®r has simply 0o/3eX but see the ;
footnote. Tuch and others adduce the analogy of the TeXxiJ'es, the first
workers in iron and brass, and the makers of Saturn's scythe (Strabo,
XIV. ii. 7) and the pair of brothers who, in the Phoenician legend,
;
were aidi]pov evperal Kai ttjs toijtov ipyaaias. nc^_i {(& "Noefia) seems to—
have been a mythological personage of some importance. A goddess
of that name is known to have been worshipped by the Phoenicians, J
In Jewish tradition she figures as the wife of Noah {Ber. R.), as a
demon, and also as a sort of St. Cecilia, a patroness of vocal music
(SP: cf. Lag. OSf 180, 56: 'Soefuv xjâXKovaa <pu}v^ ovk iv dpyduq: [Nestle,
MM, 10]).
23, 24. The song of Lamech. —A complete poem in three

distichs, breathing- the fierce implacable spirit of revenge
that forms the chief part of the Bedouin's code of honour.
It is almost universally assumed (since Herder) that
it com-
memorates the invention of weapons by Tubal-cain, and is

accordingly spoken of as Lamech's Sword Song.' But the *
The words pixn and n"ipx are almost exclusively poetical. On the form —
jypf see G-K. § 46/:
,
—
'•npn is perf. of experience (Dav. § 40 (c) Dri. T. ;
§ 12), rather than of single completed action, or of certainty (lEz. De.

Bu. al.).
— "? is not recitative, but gives the reason for the call to attention.
— '•ll^Bh, "r^-nznh] On this use of ^, see BDB, s.v. 5, f. : ffir et's rpaOfia [fiuiXuira]
* See Andree, Ethnogr. Parall. u. Vergleiche (1878), 157.

t So Ew., who thinks the y-p belongs to each of the three names.
X Lenorm. 200 f.; Tiele, Gesch. i. 265; Baethgen, Beitr. 150.
— !
IV. 23, 24 121
contents of the song furnish no hint of such an occasion

(We.); and the position in which it stands makes its con-
nexion with the genealogy dubious. On that point see,
further, below. It is necessary to study it independently, as
a part of the ancient legend of Lamech which may have
supplied some of the material that has been worked into
the genealogy. —
The vv. may be rendered :
^ Adah and Zillah, hear my voice !
Wives of Lamech, attend to my word I
For I kill a man for a wound to me,

And a boy for a scar.
^ For Cain takes vengeance seven times.
But Lamech seventy times and seven !
23a. Ho. raises the question whether the words *

Adah and
Zillah ' belong to the song or the prose introduction ; and
decides (with 5J) for the latter view, on the ground that in
the remaining vv. the second member is shorter than the
first (which is not the case). The exordium of the song
might then read :
Hear my voice, ye women of Lamech

Attend to my word !
the address being not to the wives of an individual chieftain,

but to the females of the tribe collectively. It appears to
me that the alteration destroys the balance of clauses, and
mars the metrical effect : besides, strict syntax would
require the repetition of the ?. —23b. The meaning is that
(the tribe ?) Lamech habitually avenges the slightest personal
injury by the death of man or child of the tribe to which the
assailant belongs. According to the principle of the blood--
feud, ^''^ and ^^ is not a fighting 'youth,'
('•>
a sense it —
rarely bears; i Ki. 12^^-, Dn. i^^-, — but an innocent man-
child [Bu. Ho.]) are not the actual perpetrators of the
outrage, but any members of the same clan. The parallel-
ism therefore is not to be taken literally, as if Lamech
selected a victim proportionate to the hurt he had received.
—24. Cain is mentioned as a tribe noted for the fierceness
ifiol; U —
tn vulnus [livorem] metim. 24. '?] again introducing the reason,
which, however, "lies not in the words immediately after '3, but in the
122 CAINITE GENEALOGY (j)
of its vendetta (7 times) ; but the vengeance of Lamech

knows no limit (70 and 7 times).
The Song has two points of connexion with the genealogy : the
names of the two wives, and the allusion to Cain. The first would
disappear if Ho.'s division of ^^ were accepted ; but since the ordinary
view seems preferable, the coincidence in the names goes to show that
the song was known to the authors of the genealogy and utilised in its
construction. With regard to the second, Gu. rightly observes that
glorying over an ancestor is utterly opposed to the spirit of antiquity ;
the Cain referred to must be a rival contemporary tribe, whose grim

vengeance was proverbial. The comparison, therefore, tells decidedly
against the unity of the passage, and perhaps points (as Sta. thinks)
to a connection between the song and the legendary cycle from which
the Cain story of ^^^* emanated. —
The temper of the song is not the
primitive ferocity of '* a savage of the stone-age dancing over the corpse
of his victim, brandishing his flint tomahawk," etc. (Lenorm.) its real ;
character was first divined by We., who, after pointing out the base-
lessness of the notion that it has to do with the invention of weapons,
describes it as " eine gar keiner besonderen Veranlassung bediirftige
Prahlerei eines Stammes (Stammvaters) gegen den anderen. Und wie
die Araber sich besonders gern ihren Weibern gegenuber als grosse
Eisenfresser riihmen, so macht es hier auch Lamech" {Comp.^ 305)' On
this view the question whether it be a song of triumph or of menace does
not arise as expressing the permanent temper and habitual practice of
;
a tribe, it refers alike to the past and the future. The sense of the
passage was strangely misconceived by some early Fathers (perhaps by
ffirU), who regarded it as an utterance of remorse for an isolated murder
committed by Lamech. The rendering of E° is based on the idea

(maintained by Kalisch) that Lamech's purpose was to represent his
homicide as justifiable and himself as guiltless I have not slain a man
:
'
on whose account I bear guilt, nor wounded a youth for whose sake my
seed shall be cut off. When 7 generations were suspended for Cain,
shall there not be for Lamech his son 70 and 7?' Hence arose the
fantastic Jewish legend that the persons killed by Lamech were his
ancestor Cain and his own son Tubal-cain (Ra. al.; cf. Jer. Ep. ad
—
Damasunty 125).* The metrical structure of the poem is investigated
by Sievers in Metrische Studien, i. 404 f., and ii. i2f., 247 f. According
to the earlier and more successful analysis, the song consists of a double
tetrameter, followed by two double trimeters. Sievers' later view is
vitiated by an attempt to fit the poem into the supposed metrical scheme
of the genealogy, and necessitates the excision of n'?si my as a gloss.
Apart from v.^^^-, the most remarkable feature of the genealogy is
second part of the sentence " (BDB, s.v. 3, c) cf. Dt. 18^*, Jer. 30".— op;
:
on ace, see G-K. § 29 g. The Niph. Ufi\ would yield a better sense :
'avenges himself* (Bu. Di. Ho.).
• See, further, Lenorm. Orig. i. i86fF.

;
'
IV. 24 123
the division of classes represented by the three sons of Lamech. It is
difficult to understand the prominence given to this classification of
mankind into herdsmen, musicians, and smiths, or to imagine a point of
view from which it would appear the natural climax of human develop-
ment. Several recent scholars have sought a clue in the social con-
ditions of the Arabian desert, where the three occupations may be said
to cover the whole area of ordinary life. Jabal,- the first-born son,
stands for the full-blooded Bedouin with their flocks and herds,* the —
ilite of all nomadic-living men, and the flower of human culture
*
(Bu. 146). The two younger sons symbolise the two avocations to which
the pure nomad will not condescend, but which are yet indispensable
to his existence or enjoyment —
smith-work and music (Sta. 232). The
obvious inference is that the genealogy originated among a nomadic
people, presumably the Hebrews before the settlement in Canaan (Bu.)
though Ho. considers that it embodies a specifically Kenite tradition in
which the eponymous hero Cain appears as the ancestor of the race (so
Gordon, ETG, 188 ff.).— Plausible as this theory is at first sight, it is
burdened with many improbabilities. If the early Semitic nomads
traced their ancestry to (peasants and) city-dwellers, they must have
had very different ideas from their successors the Bedouin of the present
day.t Moreover, the circumstances of the Arabian peninsula present a
very incomplete parallel to the classes of v v. 20-22. Though the smiths
form a distinct caste, there is no evidence that a caste of musicians ever
existed among the Arabs and the Bedouin contempt for professional
;
musicians is altogether foreign to the sense of the vv., which certainly

imply no disparaging estimate of Jubal's art. And once more, as Sta.
himself insists, the outlook of the genealogy is world-wide. Jabal is the
prototype of all nomadic herdsmen everywhere, Jubal of all musicians,
and Tubal (the Tibareni?) of all metallurgists. —
It is much more
probable that the genealogy is projected from the standpoint of a settled,
civilised, and mainly agricultural community. If (with Bu.) we include
vv.2 and "**, and regard it as a record of human progress, the order
of development is natural husbandmen, city-dwellers, wanderers [?]
:
(shepherds, musicians, and smiths). The three sons of Lamech represent

not the highest stage of social evolution, but three picturesque modes of
life, which strike the peasant as interesting and ornamental, but by no
—
means essential to the framework of society. This conclusion is on the
whole confirmed by the striking family likeness between the Cainite
genealogy and the legendary Phoenician history preserved by Eusebius
from Philo Byblius, and said to be based on an ancient native work by
Sanchuniathon. Philo's confused and often inconsistent account is
naturally much richer in mythical detail than the Heb. tradition but ;
the general idea is the same in each case we have a genealogical list
:
*But against this view, see p. 112 above, and Meyer, INS^ 303 fF.
t Ho. evades this objection by deleting v."**, and reducing the
genealogy to a bare list of names but why should the Kenites have
;
interposed a whole series of generations between their eponymous

ancestor and the origin of their own nomadic life ?
— *
124 SETHITE GENEALOGY (j)
of the legendary heroes to whom the discovery of the various arts and
occupations is attributed. Whether the biblical or the Phoenician
tradition is the more original may be doubtful; in any case "it is
difficult," as Dri. says, "not to think that the Heb. and Phcen.
representations spring from a common Canaanite cycle of tradition,
which in its turn may have derived at least some of its elements from
Babylonia " {Gen. p. 74).
IV. 25, 26. Fragtneniary Sethite Genealogy.
The vv. are the beginning of a Yahwistic genealogy

(see above, p. 99), of which another fragment has fortunately
been preserved in 5^^ (Noah). Since it is thus seen to have
* Cf Eus. Prcep. Ev. 1. 10 (ed. Heinichen, p. 39 ff.). The Greek text

is printed in Miiller's Fragm. Hist, Grcec. iii. 566 f. French transla-
tions are given by Lenorm. Orig. i. 536 ff., and Lagrange, Etudes sur
les Religions Semitigues^, 362 ff. (the latter with a copious commentary
and critical introduction). — The passage in Eusebius is much too long
to be quoted in full, but the following extracts will give some idea of
its contents and its points of similarity with Gen.: Of the two proto-
plasts K'uhv and UpLorbyovo^, AlQva tt]v dirb tG>v
it is recorded evpetv 5k rbv
5hdp<j}v Tpocjirjv. —
The second pair, V^vos and Teved, dwelt in Phoenicia,
and inaugurated the worship of the sun. Of the race of Aidov and —
lipiard'yovoi were born three mortal children, ^ws, Hu/), and <i>X(5| o^toi :
iK 7rapaT/)t/3^s ^vXwv edpov irCp, Kai tt]v xPW'-^ iUSaâv.—Then followed

a race of giants, of whom was born [Sa]/i?7ya/)ou/ios ( = DnD '•dk') 6 Kal
*T\//ovpdvios, who founded Tyre. Of him we read Ka\6âs re iTrtvoijaai :
aTTO KaXdjJiiov, Kal 6p{i(i)v, Kal irarr^pujv' oracrtdcrai 5k Trpbs rbv d5e\(f>bv OUawov,
Ss a-Kk-rrrjv ry aufiari irpCoros iK depfidruv &v fcrxi'O'f (rvWaêlv drjpluv eCpe . . .
AivSpov dk Xaôfievov rbv OUawov Kal diT0K\a8e(iaavTa, irpQiTOV To\/XT]crai els
dakaaaav kfi^rjuai' dviepCoaai 8k 8vo crTTjXas . . . al/xd re <rirkv8€i.v avrals i^ S)V
ijypeve drjpLuu. —The further history of invention names {a) 'Aype^s and
'AXiet^s, Tovs dXeias Kal dypas evperds ;
(b) . . . dio ddeX(poi)S (ndrjpov evperds,
Kal TTJs TOIJTOV ipyaaias' &v ddrepov rbv XpviTU}p Xdyovs dcTKTjcrai., Kal iircpdcLS
Kal fiavrelas ;
(c) TexJ^'-Tijs and Ttjluos AvtSxôiv : oiSrot iTrevoTjcrav t(^ tttjXc^
T7]s irXlvdov (TvfXfjLiyvij€LV (popvrbv, Kal t^j rjXict} auras repaaiveiv, dXXd Kal ariyas
iêvpov ;
{d) 'Ayp6s and 'Aypovrjpos (or 'AypbTrjs) : iwevbrjaau 8k odrot auXas
Trpoa-Tidkvai rots oikols cat TrepijSoXaLa Kal cnrrjXaLa' iK tovtujv dyporai Kal
KvvTjyoi ;
{e) "Afivuos and Mdyos : ot KarkSeiâv KQ/mas Kal iroi/xvas ;
{/") Mi(rdjp
(ntyo) and Xv8vk ovtol ttjp toO dXbs XP^^"' ^^pov.
(pi^') : {g) Of Micrci/) was
born TdavT, 6s eCpe Tr]v tQiv irpiJoTOv ctolx^Lwv ypa<p7jv and (k) of 1,v8vk, the •
AidcTKOvpoL : oSrot, (ptjal, irpQroi irXolov evpov. —After them came others ot
Kal ôrdvas edpov, Kal tt)v tQv 8aKeTu>v taaiv, Kal iir(^8ds. — It is impossible
to doubt that some traditional elements have been preserved in this
extraordinary medley of euhemerism and archseology, however unfavour-
ably it may contrast with the simplicity of the biblical record.
— —
IV. 25 125
contained the three names (Seth, Enos, Noah) peculiar to

the genealogy of P, it may be assumed that the two lists
were in substantial agreement, each consisting of ten
generations. That that of J was not a dry list of names
and numbers appears, however, from every item of it that
has survived. The preservation of 4^^^- is no doubt due to
the important notice of the introduction of Yahwe-worship
(26^), the redactor having judged it more expedient in this
instance to retain J's statement intact. The circumstance
shows on how slight a matter far-reaching critical specula-
tions may hang. But for this apparently arbitrary decision
of the redactor, the existence of a Sethite genealogy in J
would hardly have been suspected and the whole analysis ;
of the J document into its component strata might have run

a different course.
25- And Ada7n knew^ e^c] see on v.^ That Vy_^ denotes
properly the initiation of the conjugal relation (Bu.) is very
doubtful: see 38^^, i Sa. i^^. And she calted] see again on v.^.
— God has appointed me seed] (the remainder of the v. is
probably an interpolation). Cf. 3^^. Eve's use of n^nbi^ is
not 'surprising' (Di.) ; it only proves that the section is not

from the same source as v.^. On the other hand, it harmon-
ises with the fact that in 3^®- D\"l^t< is used in dialogue. It
is at least a plausible inference that both passages come
from one narrator, who systematically avoided the name niiT
up to 4^^ (see p. 100).
The present form undoubtedly presupposes a knowledge of

V. in its
the Cain and Abel narrative of 4^"^^ but it is doubtful if the allusions
;
to the two older brothers can be accepted as original (see Bu. 154-159).
Some of Bu.'s arguments are strained; but it is important to observe
that the word niy is wanting in fflr, and that the addition of '?nn nnn nnx
destroys the sense of the preceding utterance, the idea of subsHtution
being quite foreign to the connotation of the vb. n^v). The following
clause pp "iJnn '3 reads awkwardly in the mouth of Eve (who would
naturally have said 'p 'n iss'n), and is entirely superfluous on the part of
25. cnx] here for the first time unambiguously a prop. name. There
isno reason to suspect the text the transition from the generic to the
:
individual sense is made by P only in 5^"^, and is just as likely to have

—
been made by J. (& reads îiav in place of niy ^ has both words. ;
Before n'?ni ffic^ insert nnpii. — xnpm] »xx snp'i. — '?] (& X^yovaa ; so Hand
)
126 SETHITE GENEALOGY (j)
the narrator. The excision of these suspicious elements leaves a

sentence complete in itself, and exactly corresponding- in form to the
naming of Cain in v.^ yni D'nhn 'h nr, God has appointed me seed'
:
*
(i.e. posterity). There is an obvious reference to 3^^ where both the

significant words n'^ and ynt occur. But this explanation really implies
that Seth was the first-born son (according to this writer), and is
unintelligible of one who was regarded as a substitute for another. How
completely the mind of the glossator is preoccupied by the thought of
substitution is further shown by the fact that he does not indicate in
what sense Cain has ceased to be the 'seed' of Eve. As a Heb. word —
(with equivalents in Phcen. Arab. Syr. Jew. -Aram. cf. No. Mand. Gr. :
p. 98) n?* would mean foundation (not Setzlingy still less Ersatz)
'
' but its ;
real etymology is, of course, unknown. Hommel's attempt (^0Z>, p. 26 ff.

to establish a connexion with the second name in the list of Berossus
(below, p. 137) involves too many doubtful equations, and even if
successful would throw no light on the name. In Nu. 24^'^ Jvo appears
to be a synonym for Moab but the text is doubtful (Meyer, INS, 219).
;
The late Gnostic identification of Seth with the Messiah may be based
on the Messianic interpretation of 3^^ and does not necessarily imply
a Babylonian parallel.
26. On the name Cîi< ( = Man^ and therefore in all prob-

ability the first member of an older genealogy), see below.
— Then men began to call ^ etc.] Better (with fflc) etc., v.t.):
He was the first to call on the name of Yahwe (cf. 9^0 10^),
i.e. he was the founder of the worship of Yahwe; cf. 12^
13* 21^^ 26^^ (all J). What historic reminiscence (if any)
lies behind this remarkable statement we cannot conjec-
ture; but its significance is not correctly expressed when
even SD^—26. wn dj] (G-K. § 135 A) (& om. t^"i3t|] like din, properly a —
coll. : En6§ is a personification of mankind. The word is rare and
mostly poetic in Heb. (esp, Jb. Ps.); but is common in other Sem.
dialects (Ar. Aram. Nab. Palm. Sab. Ass.). Nestle's opinion {MM,
6f.), that it is in Heb. an artificial formation from dtj*?, and that the
genealogy is consequently late, has no sort of probability the only ;
'
artificiality in Heb. is the occasional individual use.
' There is a pre-
sumption, however, that the genealogy originated among a people to
whom tsnJN or its equivalent was the ordinary name for mankind
—
(Aramaean or Arabian). ^mn m] so Aq. 2. jux hnn in ffi oCros i)\iri<Tev ; ;
(from si ^n') implies either Vnn n? or 'n Nin so 5J {iste coepit) and Juh.
;
iv. 12; ^ has t^;-* -—ip-iCTI. The true text is that read by ffir, etc. ;
and the alteration of

if MT
was intentional (which is possible), we may
safely restore Snn wn after 10^. The Jewish exegesis takes ^r\v\ in the
sense * was profaned,' and finds in the v. a notice of the introduction of
idolatry (Jer. Qu., Su^J, Ra. al.), — although the construction is absolutely
ungrammatical (lEz.). — After ni.T (&. adds carelessly tov deov.
—
IV. 25-V 127
it is limited to the Institution of formal public worship on

the part of a religious community (De.); and the idea that
it is connected with a gfrowlngf sense of the distinction
between the human and the divine (Ew. De. al.) is a baseless
fancy. It means that 'En6§ was the first to invoke the
Deity under this name and it is interesting chiefly as a
;
reflexion,emanating from the school of J, on the origin of

the specifically Israelite name of God. The conception is
more Ingenuous than that of E (Ex. 3^^"^^) or P (6^), who
base the name on express revelation, and connect it with
the foundation of the Hebrew nationality.
The expression DK'3 Knp (lit. 'call by [means of] the name of Y.')
'*
denotes the essential act in worship, the invocation (or rather evocation)
of the Deity by the solemn utterance of His name. It rests on the wide-
spread primitive idea that a real bond exists between the person and his
name, such that the pronunciation of the latter exerts a mystic influence
on the former.* The best illustration is i Ki. i8^^-, where the test
—
proposed by Elijah is which name Baal or Yahwe will evoke a —
—
manifestation of divine energ-y. The cosmopolitan diffusion of the name
ni.T, from the Babylonian or Egyptian pantheon, though often asserted,!
and in itself not incredible, has not been proved. The association with
the name of Eno§ might be explained by the supposition that the old
genealogy of which Eno§ was the first link bad been preserved in some
ancient centre of Yahwe-worship (Sinai ? or Kadesh ?).
Ch. V. The Ante-Diluvian Patriarchs (P).
Code the interval between the Creation

In the Priestly
(ii-2^*) and the Flood (6^) is bridged by this list of ten
patriarchs, with its chronological scheme fixing the duration
of the period (in MT) at 1656 years. The names are
traditional, as is shown by a comparison of the first three
with 425'-, and of Nos. 4-9 with 4^^^-. It has, indeed, been
held that the names of the Calnlte genealogy were intention-

ally modified by the author of P, in order to suggest certain
* See Giesebrecht, Die A Tliche Schdtzung des Gottesnamens, esp. p.

2sfr.,98ff.
tW. M. Miiller, AE, pp. 239, 312; Del. Babel [tr. M'Cormack] p.
6i f. ; Bezold, Die Bab. -Ass. Keilinschr. etc. p. 31 ff. Oppert, ZA, xvii.
;
291 ff. ; Daiches, ib. xxii. (1908), 125 ff Algyogyi-Hirsch, ZATW, xxiii.
;
355ff. Sta. BTh. \. 29; Me. GA^, i. (2te Halfte), 545 f.

; Cf., further,
Rogers, Rel. of Bab. and Ass. (1908), p. 89 ff.
—
128 ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS (p)
views as to the character of the patriarchs. But that is at

best a doubtful hypothesis, and could only apply to three or
four of the number. It is quite probable that if we had the
continuation of J's Sethite genealogy, names would be

its
found to correspond closely with those of ch. 5. The —

chronology^ on the other hand, is based on an artificial
system, the invention of which may be assigned either to P
or to some later chronologist (see p. 136 below). — What is
thoroughly characteristic of P is the framework in which

the details are set. It consists of (a) the age of each
patriarch at the birth of his first-born, {h) the length of his
remaining life (with the statement that he begat other chil-
dren), and (c) his age at death.* The stiff precision and
severity of the style, the strict adherence to set formulae,
and the monotonous iteration of them, constitute a some-
what pronounced example of the literary tendencies of the
Priestly school of writers.
The distinctivephraseology of P (o'n''?^, N")?, mD"n, napî naj) is seen

most clearly in vv.^^*
^, which, however, may be partly composed of
glosses based on i^^^- (see on the vv.). Note also n'lVw (^'*), xh-i, niDi
(3), n^în (throughout), cn^Nn-nx -iVn^n (^2. 24^ ^f. 6**) the syntax of the
;
numerals (which, though not peculiar to P, is a mark of late style see :
G-K, § 134 i'l Dav. § 37, R. 3); the naming of the child by the father (^).
The one verse which stands out in marked contrast to its environment
is 2^, which is shown by the occurrence of the name mn' and the allusion
to 3^'' to be an extract from J, and in all probability a fragment of the

genealogy whose first links are preserved in 4^^- '^.
** The aim of the writer is by means of these particulars

to give a picture of the increasing population of the earth,
as also of the duration of the first period of its history, as
conceived by him, and of the longevity which was a current
element in the Heb. conception of primitive times " (Dri.
Gen, p. 75). With regard to the extreme longevity attri-

buted to the early patriarchs, it must be frankly recognised
that the statements are meant to be understood literally, and
that the author had in his view actual individuals. The
* Only in the cases of Adam (v.^), Enoch (^2. 24^ .^^^ Lamech i^- 2^)
are slight and easily explicable deviations from the stereotyped form
admitted. The section on Noah is, of course, incomplete.
CH. V. 129
attempts to save the historicity of the record by supposing

(a) that the names are those of peoples or dynasties, or
(b) that many links of the genealogy have been omitted, or

(c) word n:K^ denotes a space of time much shorter
that the
than twelve months (see Di. 107), are now universally
discredited. The text admits of no such interpretation. It
is true that ** the study of science precludes the possibility
of such figures being literally correct"; but *' the com-
parative study of literature leads us to expect exaggerated
statements in any work incorporating the primitive traditions
of a people" (Ryle, quoted by Dri. p. 75).
The author of P knows nothing of the Fall, and offers
no explanation of the violence and
*
corruption
' with *
'
which the earth is filled when the narrative is resumed (6^^).

It is doubtful whether he assumes a progressive deteriora-
tion of the race, or a sudden outbreak of wickedness on the

eve of the Flood in either case he thinks it unnecessary to
;
propound any theory to account for it. The fact reminds

us how little dogmatic importance was attached to the story
of the Fall in OT times. The Priestly writers may have
been repelled by the anthropomorphism, and indifferent to
the human pathos and profound moral psychology, of
Gen. 3 they may also have thought that the presence of
;
sin needs no explanation, being sufficiently accounted for by

the known tendencies of human nature.
Budde has endeavoured to show that the genealogy
(C/r^^^cA. 93-103)
itself contains a cryptic theory of degeneration, according to which the
first five generations were righteous, and the last five (commencing with
Jered [= 'descent '], but excepting Enoch and Noah) were wicked.
His chief arguments are (a) that the names have been manipulated by
P in the interest of such a theory, and (6) that the Samaritan chronology
(which Bu. takes to be the original: see below, p. 135 f.) admits of the
conclusion that Jered, Methuselah, and Lamech perished in the Flood.*
Budde supports his thesis with close and acute reasoning but the facts ;
are susceptible of different interpretations, and it is not probable that a

writer with so definite a theory to inculcate should have been at such
pains to conceal it. At all events it remains true that no explanation is
given of the introduction of evil into the world.
* The more rapid decrease of life (in juu.) after Mahalalel ought not
to be counted as an additional argument because it is a necessary
;
corollary from the date fixed for the Flood.
9
— — —
I, 2. — Introduction : consisting of a superscription (^*),
followed by an account of the creation and naming of Adam

îb. 2j^ jQ^ This is the book of the generations of Ada?n]
See the crit. note below; and on the meaning of Hlpin,
see on 2**. — lb. When God created Man (or Adam) he made
him in the likeness of God] a statement introduced in view of
the transmission of the divine image from Adam to Seth
(v.^). On this and the following clauses see, further, i^^ff-.
— 2. And called their name Adam] v.i.

The vv. show signs of editorial manipulation. In ^* din is pre-
sumably a proper name (as in ^^•), in ^ it is certainly generic (note the
while in ^^ it is impossible to say which sense is intended. The
pi. suflF.),
confusion seems due to an attempt to describe the creation of the first
man in terms borrowed almost literally from i^^^-, where Dn« is generic.
Since the only new statement is and he called their name Adam, we may
suppose the writer's aim to have been to explain how mx, from being a
generic term, came to be a proper name. But he has no clear per-
ception of the relation and so, instead of starting with the generic
;
sense and leading up to the individual, he resolves the individual into

the generic, and awkwardly resumes the proper name in v.^. An
original author would hardly have expressed himself so clumsily. Ho.
observes that the heading mx mSin nsD ni reads like the title of a hook^
suggesting that the chapter is the opening section of an older genea-
logical work used by P as the skeleton of his history and the fuller ;
formula, as compared with the usual mSin rh\^, at least justifies the
assumption that this is the first occurrence of the heading. Di.'s
opinion, that it is a combination of the superscription of J's Sethite
genealogy with that of P, is utterly improbable. On the whole, the facts
point to an amalgamation of two sources, the first using onx as a
designation of the race, and the other as the name of the first man.
3-5. Adam. —hegat [a son] in his likeness^ etc.] (see on

i^fi) : implying, no doubt, a transmission of the divine image
(v.^) from Adam to all his posterity. 6-20. The sections
\ on Seth, Enos, Kenan, Mahalalel, and Yered rigidly
I. For DIN (R has 1°

av6p(Jjiru)v, 2° Âddfi conversely 1° Adam, 2"
; H
hominem.—2. (&^ iD?'.— 3. iVvi] ins. 13 as obj. (Ols. al.). n^Vi-i con-
DC-if']
fined to P in Pent. J, and older writers generally, using

;
"i"?; both for
'beget' and 'bear.' id^S? iniDi?] (fSi Karh rrjv elSâv avrovKat k. t. eiKbvaa.
— avoiding ofiolioa- is (see the note on i^). —
4. Dix 'D' vrt')] (RL jns. As
,S reads din 'n;i (but see Ball's note) as in vv.'^-
i^rjtre, as in v.^ ^^ etc.
But vv.'"" contain several deviations from the regular formula : note
'n -itffK in v.'^, and the order of numerals (hundreds before tens). The
reverse order is observed elsewhere in the chapter.
— — ;
V. 1-24 131
observe the prescribed form, and call for no detailed com-

ment, except as regards the names.
6-8. êth : For the Jewish, Gnostic, and Mohammedan
cf. 4^.
leg-ends about this patriarch, see Lenorm. Orig."^ 217-220, and Charles,
Book of Jubilees, 33 ff. —
9-1 1. 'Ends: see on ^. 12-X4. Kenan is —
obviously a fuller form of Ifdyin in the parallel genealogy of 4"^- and ;
« C y
it, means
possibly, like smith or artificer (cf. Syr- i 1 i O see on
'
'
* ' | :
'4^).Whether the longer or the shorter form is the more ancient, we

have no means of judging. It is important to note that \yp or pp is the
name of a Sabaean deity, occurring several times in inscriptions see :
Mordtmann, ZDMG, xxxi. 86; Baethgen, Beitr. 127 f., 152, 15-17.
MahalaVel ( = Praise of God') is a compound with the 8,ir. Xey. ^ûo
'
(Pr. 2721). But there the Vns. read the participle and so dSt must have ;
done here Ma\e\€r]\ = hi<h^nt^, i.e. Praising God.' Proper names com-
:
*
pounded with a ptcp. are rare and late in OT (see Dri. Sam. 14'
Gray, HPN^ 201), but are common in Assyrian. Nestle's inference that
the genealogy must be late {MM, 7f.)is not certain, because the word
might have been borrowed, or borrowed and then hebraized first :
Hommel conjectures (not very plausibly) that

it is a corruption oi Amil-
ArCiru in the list of Berossus (see AOD, 29). 'd is found as a personal
or family name in Neh. iil 18-20. Y^red (i Ch. 4^^^ would signify in
Heb. Descent
' hence the Jewish legend that in his days the angels
' ;
descended to the earth {Gen. 6^) cf. Jub. iv. 15; En. vi, 6, cvi. 13. On
:
Bu.'s interpretation, see p. 129 above. The question whether Tj'y or Tv

be the older form must be left open. Hommel (30) traces both to an
original Babylonian '/-j)/am^= descent of fire.' *
21-24. The account of Enoch contains three extraordinary

features : (a) The twice repeated D^n'^xn-nN Tj^nn»V In the
OT such an expression (used also of Noah, 6^) signifies
intimate companionship (i Sa. 25^^), and here denotes a
fellowship with God morally and religiously perfect (cf.
Mic. 6^, Mai. 2^ [^r?]), hardly differing from the commoner

walk before God' (17I 24*0) qj. Rafter God' (Dt.
'
13^, i Ki.
14^). We shall see, however, that originally it included
the idea of initiation into divine mysteries, {h) Instead of
the usual nb'i we read D^^^^f inx Hi^^-a Jinrsi ; i.e. he was
22. D'n'?N.TnK— iVnn'i] <&. ev-npârrjaev t^ dec^ (ffiL adds Kal i^rjaev 'Evwx),
S dve<XTp4<p€To, B loT^]] ;-21-», 2^° 'n Nn'?m3 yhn : Aq. and U render
literally. The art. before 'a is unusual P (see 6^- ^^). The phrase must
in
have been taken from a traditional source, and may retain an unobserved
trace of the original polytheism (* —
with the gods '). 23. 'n'i] Rd v.n
(MSS, isx(B, etc.). — 24. iJrNi] indicating- mysterious disappearance
(37'''- 42«-82.36[E] I Ki. 20*0); see G-K. § 152W.— np^] ffi fier^dvKev,
a
mysteriously translated '

so as not to see death *
(He. 1 1^).
Though the influence of this narrative on the idea of immor-

tality in later ages is not to be denied (cf. Ps. 49^^ 73^"*) > it is
hardly correct to speak of it as containing a presentiment of

that idea. The immortality of exceptional men of God like
Enoch and Elijah suggested
no inference as to the destiny of
ordinary mortals, any more than did similar beliefs among
other nations (Gu.). {c) His life is much the shortest of the
ante-diluvian patriarchs. It has long been surmised that the
duration of his life {365 years) is connected with the number

of days in the solar year and the conjecture has been re-
;
markably verified by the Babylonian parallel mentioned below.

The extraordinary developments of the Enoch-legend in later
Judaism (see below) could never have grown out of this passage alone ;
everything goes to show that the record has a mythological basis, which
must have continued to be a living tradition in Jewish circles in the time
of the Apocalyptic writers. A clue to the mystery that invests the
figure of Enoch has been discovered in Babylonian literature. The
7th name in the list of Berossus is Evedoranchus {see KAT^, 532), —
corruption (it seems certain) of Enmeduranki, who is mentioned in a
ritual tablet from the library of Asshurbanipal (K 2486 + K 4364 trans- :
lated in KAT^, 533 f) as king of Sippar (city of Samas, the sun-god),

and founder of a hereditary guild of priestly diviners. This mythical
personage is described as a 'favourite of Anu, Bel [and Ea],' and is said
to have been received into the fellowship of §ama§ and Ramman, to
have been initiated into the mysteries of heaven and earth, and in-
structed in certain arts of divination which he handed down to his son.
The points of contact with the notice in Gen. are (i) the special relation
of Enmeduranki to the sun-god (cf. the 365 of v.^S) and (2) his peculiar
;
intimacy with the gods (' walked with God ') there is, however, no:
mention of a translation. His initiation into the secrets of heaven and

earth is the germ of the later view of Enoch as the patron of esoteric
knowledge, and the author of Apocalyptic books. In Sir. 44^^ he is
already spoken of as im "vrh n;;T niN. Comp. Juh. iv. 17 ff. (with Charles's
note ad loc.) ;and see Lenorm. Ortg.^ 223; Charles, Book of Enoch
(1893), pass.
25-27. Methuselah. —
n^r?np commonly explained as man of the '
dart (or weapon),' hence tropically man of violence,' which Budde (99)
'
H tulit, but W> n'DN. The vb. became, as Duhm (on Ps. 49^^) thinks, a
technical expression for translation to a higher existence ; cf. 2 Ki. 2^°,
Ps. 49^^ 73". The Rabbinical exegesis (QT", Ber. R., Ra. ) understood
itof removal by death, implying an unfavourable judgment on Enoch
which may be due in part to the reaction of legalism against the
Apocalyptic influence.
—
V. 25-31 133
regfards as a deliberate variation of VKB'inD (4^®) intended to suggest the
wickedness of the later generations before the Flood (see above, p. 129).
Lenormant (247) took it as a designation of Saggitarius, the 9th sign
of the Zodiac according to Honimel, it means sein Mann ist das
;
*
Geschoss (!), and is connected with the planet Mars.* If the 8th name
'
in the list of Berossus be rightly rendered man of Sin (the moon-god),' f

'
a more probable view would be that nVa* is a divine proper name.

Hommel, indeed, at one time regarded it as a corruption of iarraJju,
said to be an ancient name of the moon-god X (cf- Cheyne, EBy 625,
4412). —
28-31. Lantech. —
The scheme is here interrupted by the inser-
tion of V.
29. An extract from J, preserving an oracle uttered by

Lamech on the birth of Noah. This (nt cf. nxT in 2^^) shall
;
bring us comfort from our labour^ and from the toil of our
hands [proceeding] from the ground^ etc.] The utterance

seems to breathe the same melancholy and sombre view of
life which we recognise in the Paradise narrative and Di. ;
rightly calls attention to the contrast in character between

the Lamech of this v. and the truculent bravo of 42^^-.
There is an obvious reference backwards to 3^^ (cf. {"invy, m^ — nanxn).

The forward reference cannot be to the Flood (which certainly brought
no comfort to the generation for whom Lamech spoke), but to Noah's
discovery of vine-culture 9^^^- (Bu. 306 flf. al.). This is true even if
:
the hero of the Flood and the discoverer of wine were traditionally
27. AfternWino ®
ins. As itv<^€V (cf. v. °).— 29. WpnJ:] (S diavairaiJiTei
hence Ball, Ki. ^^n"!].
rjfjLcis : The emendation is attractive on two
grounds (a) it yields an easier construction with the following jD and
: ;
(b) a more correct etymology of the name m. The harshness of the

etymology was felt by Jewish authorities {Ber. ^. § 25 cf. Ra.) and ; ;
We. {Degent. 38^) boldly suggested that m in this v. is a contracted writing

—
of Dm = comforter.' Whether ni (always written defectively) be really
'
connected with 0" = *rest' is very uncertain. If a Heb. name, it will

naturally signify 'rest,' but we cannot assume that a name presumably
so ancient is to be explained from the Heb. lexicon. The views mentioned
by Di. (p. 116) are very questionable. Goldziher {ZDMG, xxiv. 207 ff.)
shows that in mediaeval times it was explained by Arab writers from
Ar. naha, *to wail but that is utterly improbable. I3b'j;;p] Some MSS
' ; —
and ux have ^y'm^ (pi.) so <&, etc. ;
* AOD
[1902], 29. Here Amemphsinus is resolved into Amel-Nisin :
formerly {PSBA, xv. [1892-3] 245) Hommel propounded the view now
advocated by Zimmern (see next note).
t Zimmern, KAT^, 532.
X Aufs. u. Abh. ii. [1900] 222. Cheyne {I.e.) relies on the fact that
iarbu (* all-powerful ') is an epithet of various gods (De. Hdwb. 690 a).
:
134 CHRONOLOGY OF
one person ; but the connexion becomes doubly significant in view of
the evidence that the two figures were distinct, and belong" to different
strata of the J document. Di.'s objection, that a biblical writer would
not speak of wine as a comfort under the divine curse, has little force :
see Ju. 9^^ Ps. 104^^. —In virtue of its threefold connexion with the
story of the Fall, theSethite genealogy of J, and the incident of g^"^*, the
V. has considerable critical importance. It furnishes a clue to the dis-
entanglement of a strand of Yahwistic narrative in which these sections
—
formed successive stages. The fragment is undoubtedly rhythmic, and
has assonances which suggest rhyme but nothing definite can be said
;
of its metrical structure (perhaps 3 short lines of 3 pulses each).
32. The abnormal age of Noah at the birth of his first-

born is explained by the consideration that his age at the
Flood was a fixed datum (7^- ^^), as was also the fact that
no grandchildren of Noah were saved in the ark. The
chronologist, therefore, had to assign an excessive lateness
either to the birth of Shem, or to the birth of Shem's
first-born.
I. The Chronology of Ch. 5. —

In this chapter we have the first instance
of systematic divergence between the three chief recensions, the Heb., the
Samaritan, and the LXX. The differences are best exhibited in tabular
form as follows (after Holzinger)
CH. V. 135
These differences are certainly not accidental. They are due to
carefully constructed artificial systems of chronolog-y and the business ;
of criticism is first to ascertain the principles on which the various

schemes are based, and then to determine which of them represents the
original chronology of the Priestly Code. That problem has never been
satisfactorily solved and all that can be done here is to indicate the
;
more important lines of investigation along which the solution has been
sought.
I. Commencing with the MT, we may notice (a) the remarkable
relation discovered by Oppert* between the figures of the biblical
account and those of the list of Berossus (see the next note). The
Chaldean chronology reckons from the Creation to the Flood 432,000
years, the MT
1656 years. These are in the ratio (as nearly as possible)
of 5 solar years (of 365^ days) to i week. might, therefore, suppose We
the Heb. chronologist to have started from the Babylonian system, and
to have reduced it by treating each lustruvi (5 years) as the equivalent
of a Heb. week. Whether this result be more than a very striking coinci-
dence it is perhaps impossible to say. (5) A widely accepted hypothesis
is that of von Gutschmid,t who pointed out that, according to the
Massoretic chronology, the period from the Creation to the Exodus is
2666 years :t i.e. 26| generations of 100 years, or 5 of a world-cycle
of 4000 years. The subdivisions of the period also show signs of
calculation the duration of the Egyptian sojourn was probably tradi-
:
tional half as long (215 years) is assigned to the sojourn of the

;
patriarchs in Canaan from the Flood to the birth of Abraham, and

:
from the latter event to the descent into Egypt are two equal periods
of 290 years each, leaving 1656 years from the Creation to the Flood,
(c) A more intricate theory has been propounded by Bousset (^.47'fF,
XX. 136-147). Working on marked out by Kuenen {Ahhandlungeriy
lines
tr.by Budde, 108 ff.), he shows, from a comparison of 4 Esd. 9^^^- lo^^'-,
Jos. Ant. viii. 61 f., x. 147 f., and Ass. Mosis, i^ 10^2, that a chrono-
logical computation current in Jewish circles placed the establishment
of the Temple ritual in A.M. 3001, the Exodus in 2501, the migration
of Abraham in 2071 and divided this last interval into an Ante-diluvian
;
and Post-diluvian period in the ratio of 4 i (1656 414 years). Further,

: :
that this system differed from MT

only in the following particulars :
For the birth year of Terah (Gn. ii^*) it substituted (with (!5 and xxt.)
79 for 29; with the same authorities it assumed 215 (instead of 430)
years as the duration of the Egyptian sojourn (Ex. 12*°) and, finally, ;
it dated the dedication of the Temple 20 years after its foundation (as
I Ki. 6^ (&). For the details of the scheme, see the art. cited above.
* GGN, 1877, 201-223 also his art. m Jewish Enc. iv. 66 f.

m
;
t See No. Unters. ff. ; We. Prol.^ 308.

X Made up as follows —
1656 + 290 (Flood to birth of Abraham see
:
:
the Table on p. 233)+ 100 (birth of Isaac Gn, 21^) + 60 (birth of Jacob :
:
25^)+ 130 (age of Jacob at Descent to Egypt: 47"- 28) + 430 (sojourn in
—
Egypt: Ex. 12*°) = 2666. The number of generations from Adam to
Aaron is actually 26, the odd | stands for Eleazar, who was of mature
age at the time of the Exodus.
136 CHRONOLOGY OF CH. V.
These impressive as they are, really settle nothing- as to the

results,
priority of the MT.
It would obviously be illegitimate to conclude that
of b and c one must be right and the other wrong, or that that which is
preferred must be the original system of P. The natural inference is
that both were actually in use in the first cent. A.D., and that conse-
quently the text was in a fluid condition at that time. A presumption
in favour of MT
would be established only if it could be shown that the
numbers of am. and (& are either dependent on MT, or involve no chrono-
logical scheme at all.
2. The Sam. Vn. has 1307 years from the Creation to the Flood.
It has been pointed out that if we add the 2 years of Gn. 1 1^°, we obtain
from the Creation to the birth of Arpachshad 187 x 7 years and it is ;
pretty obvious that this reckoning by year-weeks was in the mind

of the writer oi Juh. (see p. 233 f.). It is worth noting also that if we
assume MT of Ex. 12^° to be the original reading (as the form of the
sentence renders almost certain), we find that ux counts from the Creation
to the entrance into Canaan 3007 years.* The odd 7 is embarrassing ;
but if we neglect it (see Bousset, 146) we obtain a series of round

numbers whose relations can hardly be accidental. The entire period
was to be divided into three decreasing- parts (1300 + 940 + 760 = 3000)
by the Flood and the birth of Abraham and of these the second exceeds
;
the third by 180 years, and the first exceeds the second by (2 x 180 = )
360. Shem was born in 1200 A.M., and Jacob in 2400. Since the work
ofP closed with the settlement in Canaan, is it not possible that this
was his original chronological period ; and that the systems of MT
(as explained by von Gutschmid and Bousset) are due to redactional
changes intended to adapt the figures to a wider historical survey?
A somewhat important objection to the originality of ux is, however,
the disparity between ch. 5 and nio^- with regard to the ages at the
birth of the first-born.
3. A connexion between sug-gested by the fact that the
ffi and ux is
first period of ®i (2242) is two of jux

practically equivalent to the first
(1300 + 940 = 2240), though it does not appear on which side the depend-
ence is. Most critics have been content to say that the ffi figures are
enhancements of those of MT
in order to bring the biblical chronology
somewhat nearer the stupendous systems of Egypt or Chaldsea. That
is not probable ; does not seem possible to discover any dis-
though it
tinctive principle of calculation in <&.Klostermann {NKZ, v. 208-247

[ = Pent. (1907) 1-41]), who defends the priority of (&, finds in it a
reckoning by jubilee periods of 49 years but his results, which are ;
sufficiently are attained by rather violent and arbitrary

ingenious,
handling of the data. Thus, in order to adjust the ante-diluvian list
to his theory, he has to reject the 600 years from the birth of Noah to
the Flood, and substitute the 120 years of Gn. 6' This reduces the !
reckoning of (& to 1762 years, and, adding 2 years for the Flood, we
obtain 1764 = 3 x 12 x 49.
See, further, on ii^*'*''- (p. 234 f.).
* 1307 + 940 (see p. 233) + 290 (as before) + 430 + 40 =3007,

;
THE LIST OF BEROSSUS 1 37

II. The Ten Ante-diluvian Kings of Berossus. The number ten —
occurs with singular persistency in the traditions of many peoples * as
that of the kings or patriarchs who reigned or lived in the mythical age
which preceded the dawn of history. The Babylonian form of this
tradition is as yet known only from a passage of Berossus extracted
by ApoUodorus and Abydenus f although there are allusions; to it in
the inscriptions which encourage the hope that the cuneiform original
may yet be discovered. J Meanwhile, the general reliability of Berossus
is such, that scholars are naturally disposed to attach considerable im-
portance to any correspondence that can be made out between his list
and the names in Gn. 5. A detailed analysis was first published by
Hommel in 1893, § another was given by Sayce in 1899. The first- ||
named writer has subsequently abandoned some of his earlier proposals,^

substituting others which are equally tentative and while some of his ;
combinations are regarded as highly problematical, others have been

widely approved.**
The names of the Kings before the Flood in Berossus are i. "AXiopos, :
2. 'A\dirapos, 3. 'A/atjAwj/ ['A/xlXXapos], 4. 'Afi/x^vcov, 5. MeydXapos [Me7d-

Xapos], 6. Adojpos [Aaws], 7. EvedJipaxos, 8.
9. '(irtdprT/s [Rd.
' Afj.îx\pivos,
QirdpTT^s], 10. 'S.laovdpos. Of the suggested Bab.

equivalents put forward
by Hommel, the following are accepted as fairly well established by
Je. and (with the exception of No. i) by Zimmern i. Aruru (see p. 102), :
2. Adapa (p. 126), 3. Atnelu ( = Man), Ummanu

(=* workman '), 7.
4.
Enmeduranki {p. Amel-Sin (p. 133), 9. Uhar-Ttitu (named as
132), 8.
father of Ut-Napi§tim), and lo. Hasisaira, or ^/ra^za^^s ( = the super- '
latively Wise,' —
a title applied to Ut-Napi§tim, the hero of the Deluge).
On comparing this selected list with the Heb. genealogy, it is evident
that, as Zimmern remarks, the Heb. natne is in no case borrowed
directly from the Bab. In two cases, howêver, there seems to be a
connexion which might be explained by a translatio7i from the one
language into the other viz. 3. VMvt. ( = Man), and 4. frp (= workman ')
: '
while 8 is in both series a compound of which the first element means

'Man.' The parallel between 7. ^^^nW Enmeduranki, has already been
noted (p. 132) and the loth name is in both cases that of the hero
;
of the Flood. Slight as these coincidences are, it is a mistake to

minimise their significance. When we have two parallel lists of equal
length, each terminating with the hero of the Flood, each having the
name for man in the 3rd place and a special favourite of the gods in
' '
the 7th, it is too much to ask us to dismiss the correspondence as

fortuitous. The historical connexion between the two traditions is still
* Babylonians, Persians, Indians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chinese,

etc. See Liiken, Traditionen, 146 ff. ; Lenorm. Orig. i. 224 ff.
t Preserved by Eus. Chron. [ed. Schoene) i. 7ff., 31 f. See Miiller,
Frag. Hist. Grcec. ii. 499 f.
% See Je. ATLO'', 221 f. § PSBA, xv. 243-246.
Exp. Times, 1899, 353.
II ^ [1902], 23 ff. AOD
** See Zimmern, KAT^,
SZ^^'\ D". Gen. 50 f. ; Nikel, Gen. u.
Kschrfrsch. 164 ff.
:
138 RELATION OF SETHITE
obscure,and is complicated by the double genealogy of ch. 4 ; but that

a connexion exists it seems unreasonable to deny.
III. Cainite Genealogies. The substantial
Relation of the Sethite and —
identity of the names in with Nos. 3-9 of ch. 5 seems to have
Gn. 4^- ^'^- ^^
been first pointed out by Buttmann {Mythologus, i. 170 ff.) in 1828, and
is now universally recognised by scholars. A glance at the following
table shows that each name in the Cainite series corresponds to a name
in the other, which is either absolutely the same, or is the same in mean-
ing, or varies but slightly in form
Sethite. Cainite.
1. 'Adam
2. Seth
3. 'En6§ (Man) •Adam (Man)
4. Kenan ?dyin
5. Mahalal'el- Han6kh
6. Y^red •trad
7. Hanokh- -MShfiyael
8. MSthA-Selah M^thft-ga-el
9. Lemekh Lemekh
10. Noah
I
§em Ham Y^pheth Yabal Yfibal TCibal-Kiyin.
While these resemblances undoubtedly point to some common original,

the variations are not such as can be naturally accounted for by direct
borrowing of the one list from the other. The facts that each list is
composed of a perfect number, and that with the last member the
single stem divides into three branches, rather imply that both forms
were firmly established in tradition before being incorporated in the
biblical documents. If we had to do merely with the Hebrew tradition,
the easiest supposition would perhaps be that the Cainite genealogy

and the kernel of the Sethite are variants of a single original which
might have reached Israel through different channels * that the latter;
had been expanded by the addition of two names at the beginning and
one at the end, so as to bring it into line with the story of the Flood,
and the Babylonian genealogy with which it was linked. The difficulty
of this hypothesis arises from the curious circumstance that in the
Berossian list of kings, just as in the Sethite list of patriarchs, the
name for *Man' occupies the third place. It is extremely unlikely
* Hommel's view {AOD, 29 f.) is that the primary list was Chaldean,
that the Sethite list most nearly represents this original, and that the
Cainite springs from a modification of it under Babylonian influence.
It would be quite as plausible to suggest that the Cainite form came
through Phoenicia (see the notes on Jabal, Tubal, and Na'amah), and
the Sethite from Arabia (Enos, Kenan, Hanokh [?], Methuselah).
—
AND CAINITE GENEALOGIES 1 39
that such a coincidence should be accidental ; and the question comes
to be whether the Assyriologists or the biblical critics can produce the
most convincing explanation of it. Now Hommel [AOD, 26 fF.) argues
that if the word for Man is preceded by two others, these others must
have been names of superhuman beings and he thinks that his inter-
;
pretation of the Bab. names bears out this anticipation. The first,
Aruru, is the creative earth -goddess, and the second, Adapa ( = Marduk)
is a sort of Logos or Demiurge— a being intermediate between gods
and men, who bears elsewhere the title zir amiluti (* seed of mankind ')
but is not himself a man.* And the same thing must, he considers, hold
good of Adam and Seth Adam should be read Di^, a personification of
:
the earth, and Seth is a mysterious semi-divine personality who was

regarded even in Jewish tradition as an incarnation of the Messiah.
If these somewhat hazardous combinations be sound, then, of course,
the inference must be accepted that the Sethite genealogy is dependent
on the Bab. original of Berossus, and the Cainite can be nothing but
a mutilated version of it. It is just conceivable, however, that the Bab.
list is itself a secondary modification of a more primitive genealogy,
which passed independently into Heb. tradition.f
VI. 1-4. The Origin of the NephUim,
This obscure and obviously fragmentary narrative relates

how in the infancy of the human race marriage alliances
were believed to have been formed by supernatural beings
with mortal women (vv.^-^) and how from these unnatural
;
unions there arose a race of heroes or demi-gods (v.^), who

must have figured largely in Hebrew folklore. It is implied,
though not expressly said, that the existence of such beings,
intermediate between the divine and the human, introduced
* But against this interpretation of the phrase, see Jen. KIBy vi.
I, 362.
t Thus, it might be conjectured that the original equivalent of Aruru
was not Adam but Havvah, as earth and mother-goddess (see pp. 85 f.,
102), and that this name stood at the head of the list. That in the process
of eliminating the mythological element Havvah should in one version
become the wife, in another remain the mother, of the first man (Adam
or Enos), is perfectly intelligible and an amalgamation of these views
;
would account for the duplication of Adam-Enos in ^^ 5. The insertion

of a link (Seth- Adapa) between the divine ancestress and the first man
is a difficulty ; but it might be due to a survival of the old Semitic con-
ception of mother and son as associated deities (Rob. Sm. KAPy 298 fF.).
It is obvious that no great importance can be attached to such guesses,
which necessarily carry us back far beyond the range of authentic
tradition.
;
I40 THE NEPHILIM (j)
an element of disorder into the Creation which had to be

checked by the special interposition of Yahwe (v.^).
The fragment belongs to the class of setiological myths. The belief
in NSphilim is proved only by Nu. 13^^ (E ?) but it is there seen to ;
have been associated with a more widely attested tradition of a race

of giants surviving into historic times, especially among the aboriginal
populations of Canaan (Dt. i^s aô-^^-îgS^ Jos. 15^^ Am. 2^ etc.). The
question was naturally asked how such beings came to exist, and the
passage before us supplied the answer. But while the setiological
motive may explain the retention of the fragment in Gn., it is not to be
supposed that the myth originated solely in this reflexion. Its pagan
colouring is too pronounced to permit of its being dissociated from two
notions prevalent in antiquity and familiar to us from Greek and Latin
literature viz. (i) that among the early inhabitants of the earth were
:
men of gigantic stature * and (2) that marriages of the gods with ;
mortals were not only possible but common in the heroic age.f Similar
ideas were current among other peoples. The Koran has frequent
references to the peoples of 'Ad and Thamiid, primaeval races noted for
their giant stature and their daring impiety, to whom were attributed
the erection of lofty buildings and the excavation of rock-dwellings,
and who were believed to have been destroyed by a divine judgment.^
The legend appears also in the Phoenician traditions of Sanchuniathon,
where followed by an obscure allusion to promiscuous sexual inter-
it is
course which appears to have some remote connexion with Gn. 6^.%
That the sojirce is J is not disputed. Di., indeed, following Schrader ||
{Einl. 276), thinks it an extract from E which had passed through the
hands of J ; but borrowing by the original J from the other source is
impossible,and the only positive trace of E would be the word D'S'SJ,
which in Nu. 13^^ is by some critics assigned to E. That argument
would at most prove overworking, and it is too slight to be considered.
— The precise position of the fragment among the Yahwistic traditions
* Hom. //. v. 302 f. ; Herod, i. 68; Paus. i. 35. 5f., viii. 29. 3;
32. 4; Lucret. ii. 1151 ; Virg. Aen. xii. 900; Pliny, HN, vii. 73 fF. etc.
Cf. Lenorm. Orig."^ i. 350 ff.
t Hom. //. xii. 23 : riiiiQkwv yivos dvdpCov ; Plato, Cratyhis, 33 Trdj/res :
\sc. ol i/\p(j}e%\ drjirov yeydvacriv ipacrdiPTOs ^ deov dvrjTTJs ^ dvrjTov Beds (text
uncertain) see Jowett, i. 341.

:
X Sur. vii, XV, xxvi, xii, xlvi, Ixxxix see Sale, Prelim. Disc. § i. :
§ Euseb. Prcep. Ev. i. 10 (see p. 124 above) airb yivovs Alcovos Kal :
UpuToyovov yepvTjdijvai aCîs iralSas dprjTovs, oh eTvai ovdfxara <i>djs /cat IlOp Kal
$X(5| viovs 8e iyhv-qaav odroi fieyedec re Kal virepoxv Kpe'iTcrovas
. . .
. . . iK TOIJTCOV, (prjah, iyevvqdif) 'Sa/HTjjj.pov/j.os 6 Kal 'T\povpdvios' cLTrb jxriTipwv

5^, <l)r]crlv, ixPVf^<^'^''tov tQ)v oh Slp i[i']T6xoi€V.
rdre yvvaiKCov dv^Srjv fiicryo/j.ivu3v
The literary indications are not absolutely decisive (except nin% v.^)
II
but the following expressions, as well as the structure of the sentences

(in v.-^'-). ^^^} on the whole, characteristic of J hnrj, nonxn 'j?-'?^ (^), .Trr :
pNî, niaa (^) see Bu. Urgesch. 6 ff., 39 A.

:
VI. I, 2 141
cannot be determined. The introductory clause **

when mankind begân
to multiply," etc., suggests that it was closely preceded by an account
of the creation of man. There is, however, no reason why it should
not have followed a genealogy like that of 4"-2'» or ^^^^- (against Ho.),
though certainly not that of P in ch. 5. The idea that it is a parallel
to the story of the Fall in ch. 3 (Schr. Di. We. Schultz) has little
plausibility, though it would be equally rash to affirm that \\. presupposes
—
such an account. The disconnectedness of the narrative is probably
due to drastic abridgment either by the original writer or later editors,
to whom its crudely mythological character was objectionable, and
who were interested in retaining no more than was needful to account
for the origin of the giants.
There remains the question whether the passage was from the first
an introduction to the story of the Deluge. That it has been so
regarded from a very early time is a natural result of its present
position. But careful examination fails to confirm that impression.
The passage contains nothing to suggest the Flood as its sequel,
except on the supposition (which we shall see to be improbable) that
the 120 years of v.^ refer to an impending judgment on the whole
human race. Even if that view were more plausible than it is, it would
be remarkable that the story of the Flood makes no reference to
still
the expiry of the allotted term nor to any such incident as is here
;
recorded. The critical probability, therefore, is that 6^'^

belongs to a
stratum of J which knows nothing of a flood (p. 2 fi^.). The Babylonian
Flood-legend also is free from any allusion to giants, or minghng of
gods and men. O. Gruppe, however {Philologus, Neue Folge, i. 93 ff. ;
ZATW, ix. i34fF.), claims to have recovered from Greek sources a

Phoenician legend of intermarriages between deities and mortals, which
presents some striking affinities with Gn. 6^-^ and which leads up to
an account of the Flood. Of the soundness of Gruppe's combinations
I am unable to judge but he himself admits that the Flood is a late
;
importation into Greek mythology, and indeed he instances the passage

before us as the earliest literary trace of the hypothetical Phoenician
legend. Even, therefore, if his speculations be valid, it would have
to be considered whether the later form of the myth may not have been
determined partly by Jewish influence, and whether the connexion
between the divine intermarriages and the Flood does not simply
reproduce the sequence of events given in Gn. That this is not incon-
ceivable is shown by the fact that on late Phrygian coins the biblical
name Nfi appears as that of the hero of the Deluge (see p. 180 below).
I, 2. The sense of these vv. is perfectly clear. The sons

of God (D\"i^Nn "':n) are everywhere in OT members (but
probably inferior members) of the divine order, or (using
the word with some freedom) angels (v.i.).
I. '? 'n;i] peculiar to J in Hex. ; 26^ 27^ 43^1 4424^ Ex. i'^ 13I5
Jos. 17^^ See Bu. 6. The apodosis commences with \.^. — hnn] see
— :
142 THE NEPHILIM (j)
"The angels are not called *sons of God' as if they had actually
derived their nature from Him as a child from its father nor in a less ;
exact way, because though created they have received a nature similar
to God's, being spirits nor yet as if on account of their steadfast
;
holiness they had been adopted into the family of God. These ideas
are not found here. The name Elohim or sons {i.e. members of the
race) of the Elohim is a name given directly to angels in contrast with
men . . . the name is given to God and angels in common He is ;
Elohim pre-eminently, they are Elohim in an inferior sense " (Davidson,

]oh^ Camb. Bihky p. 6).
In an earlier polytheistic recension of the myth, they

were perhaps called D\-!^6< simply. It is only a desire to
save the credibility of the record as literal history, that
has prompted the untenable interpretations mentioned in
the note below. — 2. These superhuman beings, attracted
by the beauty of the daughters of men [i.e. mortal women)
took to themselves as wives (strictly implying permanent
marriages, but this must not be pressed) whomsoever they
chose. No sin is imputed to mankind or to their daughters
Ho. Einl. 97.— nrnxn '3£3-'?y] see Oxf. Hex. i. 187.— 2. D'n'?«[n] '«] Jb. i«
2^ 38', [Dn. 3^] cf. D*'?N 'n, Ps. 29^ 89*^. In all these places the super-
;
human character of the beings denoted is evident,— 'belonging to the

category of the gods.' On this Semitic use of [3, see Rob. Sm. KM'^^
17; Pr.'^ 85, 389f. (i) The phrase is so understood by ffir (01 dyyeXot
[also uioi] rov deov), Q,/ub. v. i. En. vi. 2 ff (Jude ^ 2 Pe. 2% Jos. Ant. .
i. 73 Fathers down to Cyprian and Lactantius, and nearly all moderns.

;
[B transliterates i>Q-»C7ia-L i 1 < n

as in Jb. i^ 2^.] (2) Amongst the
Jews this view was early displaced by another, according to which
the sons of the gods are members of aristocratic families in distinc-
'
'
tion from women of humble rank QT^J (NUnm ân), S (t. 5vvaaTev6vTuv)y
:
Ber. R.f Ra. lEz. [Aq. {viol t. deup) is explained by Jen as deos in- '
telligens sanctos sive angelos']. So Spinoza, Herder, al. (3) The

prevalent Christian interpretation (on the rise of which see Charles's
valuable Note, B. of Juh. 33 ff.) has been to take the phrase in an
ethical sense as denoting pious men of the line of Seth Jul. Afr., most :
Fathers, Luth., Calv. al. still maintained by Strack.

: Against both
these last explanations it is decisive that mNn nun cannot have a
narrower reference in v.^ than in v.^ and that consequently 'n '33 cannot ;
denote a section of mankind. For other arguments, see Lenormant,

Orig.'^ 291 ff.; the Comm. of De. (i46flF.), Di. (ii9f.). or Dri. (82f.).
On the eccentric theory of Stuart Poole, that the sons of God were a
wicked pre-Adamite race, see Lenorm. 304 ff. O'B'jinp'i] = marry
. . .
* '
^19 ii29 25I 352 etc. — iB'N S30] ^consisting o/" allwhom,' the rare |D of —
explication', BDB, 5.z;. 3b (e); cf. G-K. § 11971; 2; Gn. 722910.
—
VI. 2, 3 143
in these relations. The guilt is wholly on the side of the

angels and consists partly, perhaps, in sensuality, partly
;
in high-handed disregard of the rights of God's lower

creatures. — It is to be noted, in contrast with analogous
heathen myths, that the divine element is exclusively
masculine.
3. A divine sentence on the human race, imposing a
limit on the term of man's life. —
My spirit shall not
3. nin'] (K Kiyptos 6 Qe6%. — pr] There are two traditional interpreta-
tions : {a) 'abide': so FS'S^°
ffli (b) 'judge' (2. Kpivei:
{KaTafiehrj), ;
so ^TJ). The formerperhaps nothing- more than a plausible guess

is
at the meaning, though a variant text has been suspected (p*?', niT,
p3:, etc.). The latter traces the form to the J yt but the etymology ;
is doubtful, since that ^ shows no trace of med. in Heb. (No. 1
ZDMGy xxxvii. 533 f.) and to call it a juss. or intrans. form is an abuse
;
of grammatical language (see G-K. § 71 r). A Jewish derivation,

mentioned by lEz. and Calv., connects the vb. with J7J, 'sheath'
(i Ch. 2\^\ —
the body being compared to the sheath of the spirit. The
Ar. dana (med. 7e;)='be humbled' or 'degraded,' yields but a tolerable
sense (Tu. Ew. al.); the Egypt. Ar. dana, which means to do a '
thing continually (Socin see G-B. s.v.\ would suit the context well, but
' ;
can hardly be the same word. Vollers {^ZA, xiv. 349 fF.) derives it from
^J J31, Ass. dandnu = be powerful the idea being that the life-giving
'
'
;
spirit shall no longer have the same force as formerly, etc. It would be
still better if the vb. could be taken as a denominative from Ass. dhidnu,
'bodily appearance,' with the sense "shall not be embodied in man for
ever." D"J><3] (& iv rots avdpibwois roirrois, whence Klostermann restores
njn mN3,* = 'this humanity,' as distinguished from that originally
created, —
an impossible exegesis, whose sole advantage is that it gives
—
a meaning to the Da in DW^ {v.i.). oViy^ li"? (thus separated)] here = —
'not ... for ever,' as Jer. 3", La. elsewhere (Ps. 15^ etc.) the
3^1;
phrase means 'never.' — Djr?]
so pointed in the majority of MSS, is
inf. const, of JJ\^, err,' with sufF.
' This sense is adopted by many (Tu.
Ew. Bu. Ho. al.), but it can hardly be right. If we refer the suff.
to D'3>f'7> the enallage numeri ('through their erring he is flesh ') would
be harsh, and the idea expressed unsuitable. If we refer it to the

angels, we can avoid an absurdity only by disregarding the accents
and joining the word with what precedes shall not (abide ?) in man :
'
for ever on account of their (the angels') erring he is flesh, and,' etc. ;
The sentence is doubly bad in point of style the first member is :
overloaded at the end by the emphatic word and the second opens ;
awkwardly without a connecting part. Moreover, it is questionable if

the idea of "i^vo (inadvertent transgression) is appropriate in the con-
nexion. Margoliouth {Expositor, 1898, ii. 33 fF.) explains the obscure
* Already proposed by Egli (cited by Bu.).

:
[ . . . in?] man for ever ; [,,,?] he is fleshy and his days

shall he 1 20 years.
A
complete exegesis of these words is impossible, owing first to the
obscurity of certain leading expressions (see the footnote), and second
to the want of explicit connexion with what precedes. The record has
evidently undergone serious mutilation. The original narrative must
have contained a statement of the effects on human life produced by
the superhuman alliances, —
and that opens up a wide field of specula-
tion * —
and possibly also an account of the judgment on the sons of
;
God, the really guilty parties in the transaction. In default of this

guidance, all that can be done is to determine as nearly as possible
the general sense of the v., assuming the text to be fairly complete,
—
and a real connexion to exist with vv.^-^. (i.) Everything turns on the
meaning of the word nn, of which four interpretations have been given
(i) That 'nn is the Spirit of Yah we as an ethical principle, striving
against and 'judging' the prevalent corruption of men (as in Is. 63^'') ;
so S2IJ, Luther, al. There is nothing to suggest that view except

the particular acceptation of the vb. pi' associated with it, and it is
now practically abandoned. (2) Even less admissible is the conception

of Klostermann, who understands 'nn subjectively of the divine feeling
{Gemiit) excited by human sinf (similarly Ra.). (3) The commonest
view in modern times (see Di.) has been that nn is the divine principle
word by Aeth. shegd = ^hody' but the proposed rendering, 'inasmuch

;
as their body (or substance) is flesh,' is not grammatically admissible.

The correct Mass. reading is oa^'a (?.^. u-^-\-^-\-'^) = inas?nuch as he too.
The objections to this are («) that the rel. \v is never found in Pent., and
is very rare in the older literature (Ju. 5'^ 6" 7^^ 8-''), while compounds
do not appear before Eccl. {e.g. 2^^) and {b) that the Di has no
like '9 ;
force, there being nothing which serves as a contrast to N^n. We.

observes that '? must represent a causal particle and possibly nothing
more. The old translators, (&: (5ia to etvai avrovs) ^'B'li'^ seem to
have been of the same opinion and it is noticeable that none of them
;
attempt to reproduce the Da, The conjectures of Ols. ((Da e'^)), Cheyne
(n;j'3 n'laiif'p?), and others are all beside the mark. 'ui vd' vni] The only
—
natural reference is to the (maximum) term of human life (so Jos. Tu.
Ew. and most since), a man's D^p; being a standing expression for his
lifetime, reckoning from his birth (see ch. 5. 35-"^, Is. 65-** etc.). The
older view (^T^J, Jer. Ra. lEz. Calv. al. so De. Klost.), that the
:
clause indicates the interval that was to elapse before the Flood, was
naturally suggested by the present position of the passage, and was
supported by the consideration that greater ages were subsequently
attained by many of the patriarchs. But these statements belong to P,
and decide nothing as to the meaning of the words in J.
* Comp. Cheyne's imaginary restoration in EB,
3391, with the
reconstructed Phoenician myth of Gruppe in Philologus, 1889, i- 100 ff.
t Reading 'nn dt nV, 'shall not restrain itself (lit. 'be silent'). See
NKZ, 1894, 234 ff. (= Pent. [1907] 28 ff.).
;
:
VI. 4 145
of life implanted in man at creation, the tenor of the decree being- that
this shall not 'abide' * in man eternally or indefinitely, but only in such
measure as to admit a maximum life of 120 years. There are two
difficulties in this interpretation {a) It has no connexion with what
:
precedes, for everything- the v. contains would be quite as intelligible

apart from the marriages with the angels as in relation to them.f
{b) The following words 'W'2. Nin have no meaning as a reason for the :
withdrawal of the animating spirit they involve a hysteron proteron

and as an independent statement they are (on the supposition) not
true, man as actually constituted being both flesh and spirit (2').
(4) The most probable sense is that given by We. {Comp.^ 305ff)> viz.
that nn is the divine substance common to Yahwe and the angels, in
contrast to "i^^?, which is the element proper to human nature (cf. Is. 31^)
so Ho. Gu. The idea will then be that the mingling of the divine and
human substances brought about by illicit sexual unions has intro-
duced a disorder into the creation which Yahwe cannot suffer to 'abide '
permanently, but resolves to end by an exercise of His supreme power.

— (ii.) We have next to consider whether the 120 years, taken in its
natural sense of the duration of individual life {v.i.), be consistent with

the conclusion just reached. We. himself thinks that it is not the :
fusion of the divine and human elements would be propagated in the

race, and could not be checked by a shortening of the lives of indi-
viduals. The context requires an announcement of the annihilation of
the race, and the last clause of the v. must be a mistaken gloss on the
first. If this argument were sound it would certainly supply a strong
reason either iov revising We.'s acceptation of ^% or for understanding
^'^
as an announcement of the Flood. But a shortening of the term of
life, though not a logical corollary from the sin of the angels, might
nevertheless be a judicial sentence upon it. It would ensure the extinc-

tion of the giants within a measurable time and indirectly impose a
;
limit on the new intellectual powers which we may suppose to have

accrued to mankind at large through union with angelic beings. J In
view of the defective character of the narrative, it would be unwise to
press the antagonism of the two clauses so as to put a strain on the
interpretation of either.
4. The Nephilhn were (or arose) in the earth in those days\

Who were the Dv?? ? The name recurs only in Nu. 13^^,
4. D'Êin] (Qi ol yiyavres ; Aq. oi iirnrlirTOVTes ; S. ol îaiot ; & (pQJLi| ]
tKP Nnnj. The etymology is uncertain (see Di. 123). There is no
* On this traditional rendering of pT, see the footnote, p. 143.

t Bu.'s argument that the v. is detachable from its present context
is, therefore, perfectly sound ; although his attempt to find a place for
it after 3^1 is not so successful (see p. 3 above).
J Just as in 3'^^- ^^ man is allowed to retain the gift of illicitly obtained

knowledge, but is foiled by being denied the boon of immortality. The
10
— — —;
'
where we learn that they were conceived as beings of

gigantic stature, whose descendants survived the days
till
of Moses and Joshua. The circumstantial form of the

sentence here (cf. 12^ 13'^) is misleading, for the writer can-
not have meant that the 'z existed in those days apart from
the alliances with the angels, and that the result of the latter
were the D^')i32 (Lenormant, al.). The idea undoubtedly is
that this race arose at that time in consequence of the union

of the divine * spirit' with human * flesh.' and also after-
allusion to a 'fall' ( ^J '?5}) of ang-els from heaven (SE^, Jer.* Ra.), or to

a 'fair of the world through their action {Ber. R. Ra.). A connexion
with 'abortive birth' (from '?5J, 'fall dead'), is not improbable
'?|).3,
(Schwally, ZATWy xviii. 144 ff.). An attractive emendation of Co.

(oViyo D'^'E^) in Ezk. 32^ not only yields a striking- resemblance to this
V. but supports the idea that the 'j (like the d^ns")) were associated with
,
the notion of Sheol. ib'n p nnx] cannot mean 'after' (as conj.), which
would require a perf to follow, but only 'afterwards, when.' On any

view, iNi; and n^;i are frequent, tenses.
—
*?« nu] (as euphemism) is
characteristic of JE (esp. J) in Hex. (Bu. 39, Anm.). Cf. Rob. Sm. K'M^,
198 ff. —
nniaan] lit. 'mighty ones' (Aq. dvparol U potentes; ^2S ;
Qr° do not distinguish from D''?'S3). The word is thoroughly naturalised

in Heb. speech, and nearly always in a good sense. But pass, like
Ezk. 32*2*^' show that it had another aspect, akin to Ar. gabhdr (proud,
audacious, tyrannical). The Ar. and Syr. equivalents are used as
names of the constellation Orion (Lane, Lex. i. 375 a P. Sm. Th. 646). ;
ViyD ntyN] cf. nViy ay, Ezk. 26^", probably an allusion to a wicked ancient
—
race thrust down to Sheol. The whole v. has the appearance of a
series of antiquarian glosses and all that can be strictly inferred from
;
it is that there was some traditional association of the Nephilim with
the incident recorded in v.^'*. At the same time we may reasonably

hold that the kernel of the v. reproduces in a hesitating and broken
fashion the essential thought of the original myth. The writer
apparently shrinks from the direct statement that the Nephilim were
the offspring of the marriages of vv.^- 2, and tantalises the curiosity of
his readers with the cautious affirmation that such beings then existed.
A later hand then introduced a reminder that they existed afterwards '
—
as well. Bu., who omits v.^, restores the original connexion with v."*
as follows onn ci'D'a pN3 D'Vsjn rn [pi]
: dm^nh -ja ixa; [ne'ND hmi].
. . .
Some such excellent sentence may very well have stood in the original
but it was precisely this perspicuity of narration which the editor
wished to avoid.
same point of view appears in 11^"^: in each case the ruling motive is
the divine jealousy of human greatness and man's pride ; is humbled by

a subtle and indirect exercise of the power of God.
* " Et angelis et sanctorum liberis, convenit nomen cadentium."
—
VI. 4 147
wards whenever (ffi w? av) the sons of the gods came in , , ,
and they (the women) bore unto thein\ That is to say, the
production of Nephilim was not confined to the remote
period indicated by v."-, but was continued in after ages
through visits of angels to mortal wives, —a conception
which certainly betrays the hand of a glossator. It is
perhaps enough to remove I?'^"?.n^ ^^"! as an interpolation,
and connect the "^^t? with D[]n D'PJ3 though even then the
;
phrasing is odd {y.i.). —

Those are the heroes (D^"|^32n) that
wereofold^ the men offame'] (DK^n "K^'as, cf. Nu. i62). HKin has
for its antecedent not i^'« as obj. to ^^^h^ (We.), but D'^S3n.
There is a touch of euhemerism in the notice (We.), the
archaic and mythological DyQ3 being identified with the
more human D"'']i33 who were renowned in Hebrew story.
probable that the leg-end of the Nephiltm had a wider circula-
It is
tion in Heb. tradition than could be gathered from its curt handling- by
the editors of the Hex. In Ezk. 32 we meet with the weird conception t/'
of a mighty antique race who are the original denizens of Sheol, where
they lie in state with their swords under their heads, and are roused to
a transient interest in the newcomers who disturb their majestic repose.
If Cornill's correction of v.^'' (dSi^d d'^d^ nmaj) be sound, these are to be
identified with the Nephilim of our passage ; and the picture throws
light on two points left obscure in Gen. : viz., the character of the
primaeval giants, and the punishment meted out to them. Ezekiel
dwells on their haughty violence and warlike prowess, and plainly
intimates that for their crimes they were consigned to Sheol, where,
however, they enjoy a kind of aristocratic dignity among the Shades.
It would almost seem as if the whole conception had been suggested by
the supposed discoveries of prehistoric skeletons of great stature, buried
with their arm^ beside them, like those recorded by Pausanias (i. 35. 5 f.,
viii. 29. 3, ^2. 4) and other ancient writers (see Rob. Sm. in Dri. Deut,
40 f.).
VI. 5-IX. 29. Noah and the Flood.
—
Analysis of the Flood- Narrative. The section on the Flood (6^-9!')
is, as has often been observed, the first example in Gen. of a truly
composite narrative i.e..,
; one in which the compiler ** instead of
excerpting the entire account from a single source, has interwoven it out
of excerpts taken alternatively from J and P, preserving in the process
many duplicates, as well as leaving unaltered many striking differences
of representation and phraseology " (Dri. 85). The resolution of the
compound narrative into its constituent elements in this case is justly
reckoned amongst the most brilliant achievements of purely literary
criticism, and affords a particularly instructive lesson in the art of
:
148 THE FLOOD (j AND p)
documentary analysis (comp. the interesting- exposition by Gu.* 121 fF.).

Here it must suffice to give the results of the process, along with a
summary of the criteria by which the critical operation is guided and
justified. The division generally accepted by recent critics is as
follows
65-8
J
P
;
VI. 5-IX. 29 149

exhibit the distinctive features of the two great sources of the primitive
history, J and P. The J sections are a graphic popular tale, appealing-
to the imagination rather than to the reasoning faculties. The aim of
the writer, one would say, was to bring the cosmopolitan (Babylonian)
Flood-legend within the comprehension of a native of Palestine. The
Deluge is ascribed to a familiar cause, the rain only, the rain lasts for ;
an unusual time, 40 days. The picturesque incident of the dove (see 8^)
reveals the touch of descriptive genius which so often breaks forth
from this document. The boldest anthropomorphisms are freely intro-
duced into the conception of God {6^^- 7^^'' 8^^); and the religious institu-
tions of the author's time are unhesitatingly assumed for the age of
—
Noah. Still more pronounced are the characteristics of P in the other
account. The vivid details which are the life and charm of the older
narrative have all disappeared ; and if the sign of the rainbow (9^^'^') is
retained, its aesthetic beauty has evaporated. For the rest, everything-
is formal, precise, and calculated, —
the size of the ark, the number of the
persons and the classification of the animals in it, the exact duration of
the Flood in its various stages, etc. if these mathematical determina- :
tions are removed, there is little story left. The real interest of the
writer is in the new departure in God's dealings with the world, of
which the Flood was the occasion, the modification of the original —
constitution of nature, q^"', and the establishment of the first of the
three great covenants, 9^"^'^. The connexion of the former passage with
Gn. I is unmistakably evident. Very significant are the omission of
Noah's sacrifice, and the ignoring- of the laws of cleanness and unclean-
ness amongst animals.*
The success of the critical process is due to the care and skill with
which the Redactor (RJ^) has performed his task. His object evidently
was to produce a synthetic history of the Flood without sacrificing- a
scrap of information that could with any plausibility be utilised for his
narrative. The sequence of P he appears to have preserved intact,
allowing- neither omissions nor transpositions. Of J he has preserved
quite enough to show that it was originally a complete and independent
narrative but it was naturally impracticable to handle it as carefully
;
as the main document. Yet it is doubtful if there are any actual lacunae
except (a) the account of the building of the ark (between 6^ and 7^), and
(6) the notice of the exit from it (between 8^^^ and ^*^). The middle part
of the document, however, has been broken up into minute frag-ments,
* Traces of P's general vocabulary are very numerous. Besides

some of those (marked by *) already enumerated in contrast to J, we
have ni)\n (6^) n'T^ (69 9^2) ; n^Vm (6i«)
^7) and '2 jm n'ln D'pn (6^^ g^- "•
; ;
)m in enumerations (6^^ ^13 gie etc.); pD (6^0

(912); f^); tDi, tQ-\ (6^^
7(8)- 14. 21 817. 19 ^2. 3) pg^^ p^ (^21 817 g7)
.
n^^N^ (6^1 9^) HTH DVH D^y3 (V^) .
;
;
nND HND (719) 3 of specification (7^1 8" 910'- is- 16)

; nmi ms (8^7 91- 7) ;
DH'nnSK'D'? (8^9) o'îy nnn (9i6)._Qf the style of J the positive indications
;
are fewer ]n H)iD (6^) nnD in the sense destroy (67 7'*- 23) [gee Ho. Hex.
: ;
*
'
loi] 2^V (6«) nrnxn ^â-hu

'"^
8^ (^ ^^ lxx)) .
-,^2i}2 (S^^). See the coram,
; ;
(f-
of Di. Ho. Gu. etc.
—
150 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO J
and these have been placed in position where they would least disturb
the flow of narration. Some slight transpositions have been made,
and a number of glosses have been introduced but how far these last ;
are due to the Redactor himself and how far to subsequent editors, we
cannot tell (for details see the notes). Duplicates are freely admitted,
and small discrepancies are disregarded ;the only serious discrepancy
(that of the chronology) ingeniously surmounted by making J's 40
is
days count twice, once as a stage of the increase of the Flood (7^^) and
once as a phase of its decrease (8^).* This compound narrative is not
destitute of interest but for the understanding of the ideas underlying
;
the literature the primary documents are obviously of first importance.

We shall therefore treat them separately.
The Flood according to J*
VI. 5-8. The occasion of the Flood Yahwe's experi- : —

ence of the deep-seated and incurable sinfulness of human
nature. It is unnecessary to suppose that a description of
the deterioration of the race has been omitted, or displaced
by 6^~* (Ho.). The ground of the pessimistic estimate of
human nature so forcibly expressed in v.^ is rather the
whole course of man's development as hitherto related,
which is the working* out of the sinful knowledge acquired
by the Fall. The fratricide of Cain, the song of Lamech,
the marriages with the angels, are incidents which, if not
all before the mind of the writer of the Flood-story, at least
reveal the gloomy view of the early history which character-
ises the Yahwistic tradition. — 5. the whole bent (lit. '
forma-
tion *) of the thoughts of his heart] It is difficult to say
whether IV''. is more properly the '
form '
impressed on the
'
mind (the disposition or character), or ' that which is formed
by the mind (imagination and purpose Siyinen und Trachten) :
5. nin'] (& KipLos 6 6e6s (so v.^).

— 'ui n2i'"'?3i] ffi loosely: /cai irds rts
SiavoelTat {tT ?) ^f ry KapBiq. avToO irrifxeXt^s iTrl to, irovTjpd ; U cuncta
cogitatio. Another Gr. rendering (6 'E/Sp,, see Field, ad loc.) is (pvaiKby
Tou dvd. ; but in 8-^ the same translator has to irXda-fxa ttjs Kap. dvd. On
the later Jewish theologoumenon of the yin nr (the evil impulse in man,
also called nif' simply) which is based on this passage, and by Jewish
comm. (Ra. on 8"^^) is found here ; see Taylor, Sayings of Jew. Fathers'^,
37, 148 flf. ; Porter, Bibl. and Sent. Studies by mevibers . . . of Yale
* The supposition of Hupfeld and Lenormant {Orig. i. 415), that the

double period occurred in the original J, has no foundation.
— — ——
VI. 5-8 VII. I 151
Cf. 821, Dt. 3121, Is. 263 (Ps. 103I4?), I Ch. 289 29I8; -v.i.—t.
The anthropopathy which attributes to Yahwe regret (DC'i'''5)
and vexation (3ikj;n*5) because He had created man is unusually

strong. Although in the sense of mere change of purpose,
the former is often ascribed to God (Ex 32'*, Jer. i8^- ^
263.13^ Jl. 2^3, Jon. 3!^ etc.), the cases are few where divine
regret for accomplished action is expressed ( I Sa. i^^). The

whole representation was felt to be inadequate (Nu. 23!^,
15II)
I Sa. yet it continued to be used as inseparable from
;
the religious view of history as the personal agency of

Yahwe. *]. God's resolve to hlot out (^HD) the race not as :
yet communicated to Noah, but expressed in monologue.

8. But Noah had found favour^ etc.] doubtless on account of
his piety but see on 7I. The Yahwistic narrative must

;
have contained some previous notice of Noah, probably at

the end of a genealogy.
VII. 1-5. Announcement of the Flood.—The section
Is an almost exact parallel to 6i^~22 ^pj^ y 1 presupposes
in J a description of the. building of the ark, which the
redactor has omitted in favour of the elaborate account of
P. Not till the work is finished does Yahwe reveal to Noah
the purpose it is to serve: v.* is obviously the first intima-
tion that has been given of the approaching deluge. The
building of the ark in implicit obedience to the divine
command is thus a great test and proof of Noah's faith ; cf.
Heb. 11^. — I. Thou and all thy house] J's brevity is here far
—
Untv. (1901), 93 ff. Drn-'?D] 'continually'; see BDB, 400b. 6. nin»] —
(5 6 deds (so V.').— nsyn'i] Gn. 34'; cf. Is. 63I0 (Pi.). Ra. softens the
anthrop. by making the impending- destruction of the creatures the
immediate object of the divine grief. J. nnONJ cf. 7^*^. In the full
sense of exterminate (as distinct from * obliterate [name, memory,
*
' '
etc.]) the vb. is peculiar to J's account of the Flood ; ct. Nu. ^^ 34^^
(P). — The V. is strongly interpolated. The clauses 'riNia -offH and dind
D'DB'n ... are in the style of P (cf. 6^'^ f^- 21 8"- 19 92 etc.) ; and the
latter is, besides, an illogical specification of DiN.n. They are redac-
tional glosses, the original text being o 'nom '3 rtDinn 'jjj ^yo DnN.rnN nnD«
cn'tyy (Bu. 249 ff. ; Di. 125).— 8. 'yyn ]n N2iD] characteristic of, though not
absolutely confined to, J 19^^ 32^ 338- 1^ 3411 ^94 ^^25 e^^. (Ho. £tnl.
:
97f.).
I. mn^] X3J.& D'n'rK; C& Kvptos 6 d€6s.— p"\^] pred. accus. Dav.
; § 76.
— —
more expressive than the formal enumerations of P (6^^

^13 316.i8j^ xhe principle involved is the religious solidarity
of the family its members are saved for the righteousness of
;
its head thee have 1 seen (to be) righteous (P'''^V, see
(cf. 19^^).
on 6^)] Bu. and others take this to be a judgement

based on Noah's obedience in building the ark but that is ;
hardly correct. The verb is not nv» but nsi, which has pre-
cisely the same force as the x-iî of 6^. Comp. also 6^. — 2.
clean p^'^^) means, practically, fit for sacrifice and human

food ; the technical antithesis is ^*^9> which, however, is
here avoided, whether purposely (De. 174) or not it is
impossible to say. The distinction is not, as was once

supposed (see Tu.), a proof of J's interest in Levitical
matters, but, on the contrary, of the naivete of his religious
conceptions. He regards it as rooted in the nature of things,
and cannot imagine a time when it was not observed. His
view is nearer the historical truth than the theory of P,
who traces the distinction to the positive enactments of
the Sinaitic legislation (Lv. 11, Dt. 14), and consequently
ignores it here. The same difference of standpoint appears
with regard to sacrifice, altars, etc. : see 4^*- 8^^ 12'^ etc.
rm^ ny^C'] by sevens (G-K. § 134^); i.e. 'y (individuals)

of each kind (De. Str. rather than 7 pairs' [Ber. R.
'
al.), '
lEz. Di. Gu. al.), — in spite of the following incsi ^^^. It
is a plausible conjecture (Ra. De. Str.) that the odd

individualwas a male destined for sacrifice (8^^). 3a presents —
an impure text [v.i.), and must either be removed as a gloss
(Kue. Bu. Ho. Gu. al.) or supplemented with ffi(Ba. Ben.).
3b. to keep seed alive etc.] reads better as the continuation of
^
2. For D'3B', Au-ffirîT read d'jb' D'Jty,

—probably correctly. — inK-Ni e^'n (bis)]
juuL assimilating J to P.— 3a. The distinction to be expected

n:zp:) nst,
between clean and unclean birds is made imperfectly by jjul and S, which
insert Tint;n after wa^n ; and fully by (&, which goes further and adds
the words Kal aTrb iravTuiv tQv irereivCov t, fir] KadapQv 56o dvo dpcreu k, dTjXv,
Ball accepts this, thinking the omission in due to homoioteleuton. MT

But the phrase r\1p:^ -\3) shows that ^ has been manipulated and it is ;
on the whole more likely that it is entirely redactional. Birds may be

included in the nonnn of v.^ ; though Bu.'s parallels (Ex. S^^- 99.22.25^
Jer. 32^ 33^°-^^ 36^^, Ps. 36^) are not quite convincing.— 3b. nVn^] P uses
— ;
\
VII. 2-7 153

2 than of 3*.
— 4. With great rhetorical effect, the reason for
all these preparations — the coming- of the Flood — is reserved
to the end. J knows no other physical cause of the Deluge
than the 40 days' rain (cf. v.i2)._5. Comp. 6^2 (P).
7-10, 23.— Entrance into the ark

12, i6b, 17b, 22,
and description of the Flood. J's narrative has here —
been taken to pieces by the Redactor, who has fitted the
fragments into a new connexion supplied by the combined
accounts of J and P. The operation has been performed
with such care and skill that it is still possible to restore
the original order and recover a succinct and consecutive
narrative, of which little if anything appears to be lost. The
sequence of events At the end of the seven
is as follows :
days, the Flood comes (v.^^) Noah enters the ark (^) and ;
Yahwe shuts him in {^^^). Forty days' rain ensues C^^), and
the waters rise and float the ark {^^^). All life on the earth's
surface is extinguished; only Noah and those in the ark
survive (^^^').
The rearrangement here adopted (lo. v. i6b. 12. i7b. 22.

23) jg j^g mainly
to the acute criticism of Bu. {Urg. 258 ff.), who has probably added the
last refinements to a protracted process of literary investig-ation. Some
points {e.g. the transposition of vv.' and ^^) are, of course, more or less
doubtful ; others {e.g. ^^^) are seen to be necessary as soon as the com-
ponents of J have been isolated. The most difficult thing- is to clear the
text of the glosses which inevitablyaccompanied the work of redaction ;
but this also has been accomplished with a considerable degree of

certainty and agreement amongst recent comm. The most extensive
interpolations are part of v.', the whole of vv.^ and ^, and part of ®.
For details see the footnote.
At the end of the 7 days (cf. v.*)] The interval (we

ID.
may suppose) was occupied in assembling the animals and
provisioning the ark. the waters of the Flood\ /'ISfsn, a tech-
nical name for the Deluge, common to both sources (z;.^.).
— 7* Noah enters the ark on account of the . . . Flood
Hiph. (61^*-).— yij] as Jer. Z^^--^- °'°'^] O" \ as denoting the close of a
term (cf. v.^°), see BDB, s.v. 6b.— Dip;n] a rare word (only f-^, Dt. ii^),
meaning that which subsists ( sj Q""?)-
* avdarefjia (other exx. in Field,
'
®
4âvd(rTa<nv)y U stibstaniiuy 5> ^].D J ^\d. On the form see Barth, Nom.-
hild. 181 ; Kon. ii. 146 ; G-K. § 85 'd.
7. ^BX — I'jî] The enumeration is in the manner of P (obs. also 'iriK)

——
hence v.'^ presupposes v.^^. The same order of events is
found in P Babylonian legend " when the

(^^' ^^) and in the :
lords of the darkness send at evening a (grimy ?) rain, enter

into the ship and close thy door" (1. 88 f.). l6b (which must
in any case follow immediately on v.^) contains a fine anthro-
pomorphism, which (in spite of the Bab. parallel just cited)
it is a pity to spoil by deleting mn^ and making Noah the
implicit subject (Klost. NKZ, i. 717).— 12. for^y days and

forty nights] This determination, which in J expresses the
entire duration of the Flood, seems to have been treated by
R as merely a stage in the increase of thejjvaters (cf. 8^).
It obviously breaks the connexion of P. "^TThe Babylonian
deluge lasted only six days and night^. 128). 17b. Parallel
to ^^ (P). —22, 23. A singularly effective description of the
the words either replace in'n-'?3i (as v.^), or are a pure insertion ;— in
either case redactional.— SuD.i 'd] so 9" (P) (ct. d:d 'an, 61' 76).—
710 (J),
Sâo] <& KaraKXvfffxSs ; diluvium 5 U ; and ^^ N3Dia (SP Njynio). The word
has usually been derived from '?3% 'streaming' (see Ges. TA., Di.) but ;
is more probably a foreign word without Heb. etymology (see No.
ZDMG, xl. 732). Del. {Parad. 156) proposed the derivation from Ass.
nabdluy 'destroy,' which is accepted by Konig (ii. 153), Ball (p. 53), and
others. The Bab. technical equivalent is abAbu, which denotes both a
'
light-flood and a water-flood
' the double sense has been thought
*
' :
to explain P's addition of d:d to the word (see on 6"). A transformation

of the one name into the other is, however, difficult to understand (see
KAT^, 495^, 546^). In Ps. 29" "pud appears to be used in a general
sense without a historic reference to the Noachic Deluge (see Duhm,
adloc.).—S, 9 present a mixed text. The distinction of clean and un-
clean points to J but all other features (dm^n [though a reading m.T
;
seems attested by jjuFSTJ, and MSS of (K] nnpji nai the undiscrimin- ; ;
ated the categorical enumeration [to which fflr adds the birds
D'MJ' D':^ ;
at the beginning of v.^]) to P. In P the vv. are not wanted, because

they are a duplicate of ""^^ : they must therefore be assigned to an
interpolator (Bu. al.).— 10. On the construction of the sentence, see
G-K. § 164a, and on v.^ below.— 12. dk'j] {^ g-asuma='he massive')
commonly used of the heavy winter rain (Ezr. lo^ Ca. 2") see GASm. :
HG, 6^.'~i6h. r])n'] (S Ki;/)ios 6 deds + TTjv KipcoTdv.—iyh. Since ^^ belongs

J, where it forms a natural
^'^ must be from
to P (112^1, nxD), its duplicate
continuation of ^K "% on the other hand (in spite of the 40 days), must be
assigned to P (see p. 164).— 22. D^'n nn mm] is an unexampled combina-
tion, arising from confusion of a phrase of J (D"n nom, 2'^) with one of P
(D"n nn, 6" 7^^). The v. being from J (cf. n^-jn instead of n^'i: inD instead ;
of yiri, 21), nn is naturally the word to be deleted.— 23a as a whole is J

(nnD, Dip', nonNH 'jrVy) ; but the clause c'Dvn . . . dhnd seems again (cf. 6')
—
VII. 8-VIII. 3A 155
effect of the Flood, which is evidently conceived as uni-

versal.
VIII. (lb?), 2b, 3a, (4?), 6-12, 13b. Subsidence of
the waters. —
The rain from heaven having ceased, the
Flood gradually abates. [The ark settles on some high
mountain; and] Noah, ignorant of his whereabouts and
unable to see around, sends out first a raven and then a
dove to ascertain the condition of the earth.
The continuity of J's narrative has again been disturbed by the
redaction. V.''*, which in its present position has no point of attach-
ment in J, probably stood originally before ^^, where it refers to the

40 days' duration of the Flood (We. Comp? 5). It was removed by R so
as to make up part of the interval between the emergence of the
mountain-tops and the drying of the ground, There are two small —
points in which a modification of the generally accepted division of
sources might be suggested, (i) ^'^ (the wind causing the abatement
of the waters) is, on account of D'n'?N, assigned to P. But the order
lb 2a jg unnatural, and transpositions in P do not seem to have
been
admitted. The idea is more in accord with J's conception of the Flood
than with P's and but for the name D\n'?N the half-verse might very
;
well be assigned to J, and inserted between and ^. (2) V.* is also

'^'^
almost universally regarded as P's (see Bu. 269 f.). But this leaves a
lacuna in J between ^ and ^^, where a notice of the landing of the ark
must have stood on the other hand, ^^ makes it extremely doubtful if
:
P thought of the ark as stranded on a mountain at all. The only ob-

jection to assigning * to J is the chronology if we may suppose the
:
chronological scheme to have been added or retouched by a later hand

(see p. 168), there is a great deal to be said for the view of Hupfeld and
Reuss that the remainder of the v. belongs to J.* The opening passage —
would then read as follows :
6a. At theend of ô daysy 2b. the rain from heaven was

restrained ; lb. and Yahwe (?) caused a wind to pass over
the earthy and the waters abated. 3a. And the waters went
to be redactlonal, and the three words following must disappear with

it. ^*»
might be assigned with almost equal propriety to J or to P.
no'i] (apoc. impf. Qal) Is a better attested Massor. reading than ns»i
(NIph.). It is easier, however, to change the pointing (to Niph.) than
to supply m.T as subj., and the sense is at least as good. — Gu.'s re-
arrangement (^^**- 22* ^^) Is a distinct improvement of the two homo-
:
logous sentences, that without ] naturally stands second.

3a. y\m ii"?.!] G-K. § 113W. (£ has misunderstood the idiom both
* It may be noted that in Jub. v. 28 no date is given for the landing

of the ark.
— — ;
on decreasing from off the earthy 4. and the ark rested on the
—
mountains of Ararat. On the landing-place of the ark, see
p. 166 below.
6b-I2. The episode of the sending out of the birds
appears in many forms of the Deluge-tradition ; notably in
the Babylonian. It is here related as an illustration of
Noah's wisdom (Gu.). Tuch quotes from Pliny, vi. 83 (on
the Indians): *'siderum in navigando nulla observatio
septentrio non cernitur ; sed volucres secum vehunt, emit-
tentes saepius, meatumque earum terram petentium comi-
tantur." — 7. He sent out a raven] The purpose of the action
is not stated till v.^ ;
partly for this reason, partly because
the threefold experiment with the dove is complete and more
natural, the genuineness of the v. has been questioned (We.
Ho. Gu. al.). Dahse, ZATW, xxviii. 5f., calls attention to
the fact that in ^^^ the v. is marked with the obelus. The
Bab. account has three experiments, but with different birds
(dove, swallow, raven). —
8. And he sent out a dove] perhaps
immediately ; see ^ below. But if v."^ be a later insertion,

we must supply and he waited "j days (see v.^*^). — 9. The de-
scription of the returnand admission of the dove is unsur-
passed even in the Yahwistic document for tenderness and
—
beauty of imagination. 10. Seven other days] implying a
similar statement before either v.^ or v.^. — II. a freshly
plucked olive leaf] The olive does not grow at great alti-
tudes, and was said to flourish even under water (Tu.).
But it is probable that some forgotten mythological signi-
ficance attaches to the symbol in the Flood-legend (see Gu.
p. 60). Cf. the classical notices of the olive branch as an
emblem of peace : Virg. Aen, viii. 116 [Paciferaeque manu
ramum prcetendit olivce) ; Livy, xxiv. 30, xxix. 16. 12. The
third time the dove returns no more ; and then at last
here and in v.'. — 7. anyn] on the art. see G-K. § 126 r; but cf.Smith's
note, RS"^, 126. — ffi here supplies rov ideiv el KeKoiraKev rb iiScop, as in v.^
— 2W^ N1S' KS'i] ^ Kal iêXduv ovx vireaTpexj/ev ; so U5 (accepted by Ball) :
see on ^. — 8. WiSP] €r oTrlffw avrov ( = vinN); assuming that both birds

were sent forth on the same day. — 10. hni]] cf. Sn"!, v.^^ (juu. has '7n'i both
times). Both forms are incorrect : read in each case "^n:;! (Bu. Dt. al.).
VIII. 4-21 157
13b. Noah ventures to remove the covering of the ark, and

sees that the earth is dry.
20-22. Noah's sacrifice. — ^J's account of the leaving of
the ark has been suppressed. Noah's first act is to offer a
sacrifice, not of thanksgiving but (as v.î shows) of pro-
pitiation : its effect is to move the Deity to gracious
thoughts towards the new humanity. The resemblance
to the Babylonian parallel is here particularly close and
instructive (see p. 177) : the incident appears also in the
Greek and Indian legends. —20. an altar] Lit. *
slaughtering-
place.' The sacrificial institution is carried back by J to
the remotest antiquity (see on 4^*- 72'-), but this is the first
mention of the and also of sacrifice by fire see p. 105

altar, :
—
above. nVy] holocausts^ —
that form of sacrifice which was
wholly consumed on the altar, and which was naturally
resorted to on occasions of peculiar solemnity (e.g. 2 Sa. 24^^).
—21. smelled the soothing odour\ niT*: n*'^ {kvicth]^ nidor)'^
becomes a technical term of the Levitical ritual, and is
never mentioned elsewhere except in P and Ezk. This,
Gu. points out, is the only place where Yahwe is actually
described as smelling the sacrifice ; but cf. i Sa. 26^^. It is
probably a refinement of the crude eudaemonism of the

Bab. story (see below) and it is doubtful how far it
p. 177 ;
elucidates primitive Heb. ideas of the effect of sacrifice.

That *'the pleasing odour is not the motive but merely
the occasion of this gracious purpose " (Knobel), may be
— 13b. nopp] possibly described In J's account of the building- of the ark.
Elsewhere only of the covering- of the Tabernacle (P) but cf. noap, ;
—
Ezk. 27'^. imn] ®r ins. t6 i/Swp airb.
20. nifT"?] (&rC^ de($.—2i. m,T] ^
K. 6 0e6s {bts).—nn'ir^ nn] ^ |j>>^5
I
"^v » —conflate ?—'?S'2^] a different vb. from that used
1^ |j^K-»5 "jZo-CDj
in 3^'^ 4" 5^^ ('i'^)- Ho. points out that Pi, of hhp is never used wîth God
as subj. (cf. On. 12^) and for this and other reasons regards î* as an
;
unskilful attempt to link the Noah of the Flood with the prophecy of
5^9. But 21a can only refer to the Flood, while the curse of 5^9 belongs
to the past moreover, an interpolator would have been careful to use
:
the same verb. The sense given to 7?p is fully justified by the usag-e
* II. \. 317 : Kviai] 8' oipavbv kev iXiffaofiiPT] irepl Kawv(^ ; cf. Ov. Met
xii. 153.
— — —
158 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
sound theology, but it hardly expresses the idea of the

passage. 2lb is a monologue (i3^"i'N). nv"' '•3 (see on 6^)
— '"lai
may be understood either as epexegetical of D^î^ "^''2^3 (a
reason why Yahwe might be moved to curse the ground,

though he will not [Ho.]), or as the ground of the promise
not to visit the earth with a flood any more. The latter is
by far the more probable. The emphasis is on '•'•"^Vap, from

his youth'y the innate sinfulness of man constitutes an
appeal to the divine clemency, since it cannot be cured by
an undiscriminating judgement like the Flood, which arrests
allprogress toward better things (cf. Is. 54^). 22. The
pledge of Yahwe's patience with humanity is the regularity
of the course of nature, in which good and bad men are
treated alike (Mt. 5*^). A division of the year into six
seasons (Ra.), or even into two halves (De.), is not in-
tended the order of nature is simply indicated by a series
;
of contrasts, whose alternation is never more to be inter-

rupted by a catastrophe like the Flood. This assurance
closes J's account of the Deluge. It rests on an interior
resolve of Yahwe ; whereas in P it assumes the form of

a 'covenant' (9^^), —a striking instance of the development
of religious ideas in the direction of legalism: cf. Jer. 31^'-
«^20f. 25f.
33
The Flood according to P.
VI. 9-12. Noah's piety; The corruption of the

earth. — 9. This is the genealogy of Noah] The formula is
usually taken as the heading of the section of P dealing
with the Flood; but see on g^^*-. — Noah is characterised as
of Pual (Ps. 3722, Jb.

24I8, Is. 6520).— nnya] (& Sm rk ipya, as 3".— '3
'"131 "ix'] (Sc Htl ^yKeirai 7) dLdvoLa r. dv6. iiri/xeXQi kt\. See on 6^. 22. ny]
ffi om. ; come to an end

Ball, i]l. —
see on 2^.
inns?'] '
' :
9. D'Dn pns] (so Jb. 12*). The asyndeton is harsh but it is hardly ;
safe to remedy it on the authority of ax (o'Dm) and U, against To ffir.
remove as a gloss from J (7^) (Ball) is too bold. Perhaps the

p'-^^
sentence should be broken up into two clauses, one nominal and the
other verbal *Noah was a righteous man perfect was he,' etc. The
:
;
—
forensic sense of pnjf given above may not be the original see S. A. :
Cook, /TS, ix. 632^, who adduces some evidence that it meant what
was due among a definite social group, and between it and its gods.
' '
— — — —
VI. 9-12 159
righteous (P^'^^) and faultless (Q^^^) on the construction :
v.i. There is perhaps a correspondence between these two

epithets and the description of the state of the world which
follows; pn^ being opposed to the 'violence,' and D''Dn to
the 'corruption' of v.^"-. pnv, a forensic term, denotes
one whose conduct is unimpeachable before a judge ; D'')iDn
is sacerdotal in its associations (Ex. 12^, Lv. i^ etc.),

meaning * free from defect,' integer (cf. 17^). in his genera-
tio7is {y.i')\ i.e. alone among his contemporaries (cf. 7^).
That Noah's righteousness was only relative to the standard

of his age is not implied.* walked with God] see on 5^^.
The expression receives a fuller significance from the Baby-
lonian legend, where Ut-napistim, like the Biblical Enoch,
is translated to the society of the gods (p. 177 below).
II f. rimm niini] is the intentional antithesis to the niD npr\\
"»N0 of 1 3^ (De.). All fiesh had corrupted its way] had

violated the divinely -appointed order of creation. The
result is violence (^^^, fflr olSlklo) — ruthless outrage per-
petrated by the strong on the weak. A ''nature red in
tooth and claw with ravin " is the picture which rises before
the mind of the writer; although, as has been already
remarked (p. contains no explana-
129), the narrative of P
tion of the change which had thus passed over the face of
the world.
The fundamental idea of v."'* is the disappearance of the Golden

Age, or the rupture of the concord of the animal world established by
the decree of i^^^*. The lower animals contribute their share to the
general corruption by transgressing- the regulation of i^'^, and com-
'
'
mencing to prey upon each other and to attack man (see 9^) so Ra. :
To restrict -i&t^j to mankind {E^, Tu. Str. Dri. Ben. al.) is therefore
— V^115] CJ iv ry yevicrei avT. The f. pi. is highly characteristic of P

(Ho. £inl. 341); but apparently always as a real pi. (series of genera-
tions) ct. the solitary use of sg. in P, Ex. i^
: Here, accordingly, it
seems fair to understand it, not of the individual contemporaries of
Noah (Tu. We. Ho. al.), but of the successive generations covered by
his lifetime. The resemblance to nrn ^n3 p''-i}i (7^) is adduced by We.
(Prol.^ 390) as a proof of P's dependence on J. ii. D'h*?**!!] One of —
the few instances of P's use of the art. with 'k. 12. cnVN] dSc Kvptos 6 6. —
* So Jerome :
" ut ostenderet non juxta justitiam consummatam, sed
juxta generationis suae eum justum fuisse justitiam."
— —
l6o THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
unnecessary and unwarranted. The phrase properly denotes all living *
being-s,'and is so used in 8 out of the 13 occurrences in P's account of

the Flood (Dri. ad loc). In 6^^ *î5. legi? means animals apart from jj-
man but that in the same connexion it should also mean mankind
;
apart from animals is not to be expected, and could only be allowed on

clear evidence. —
The difference of standpoint between P and J (6^) on
this matter is characteristic.
13-16. Directions for building the ark. 13. An- —

nouncement in gêneral terms of some vast impending
catastrophe, involving the end of all flesh (all living beings,

as v.^^). 14-16. Description of the Ark. A7t Ark (chest)
of gopher wood] probably some resinous wood. In Heb.
nnn is used only of Noah's ark and the vessel in which
Moses was saved (Ex. 2^- ^) ; the name ark comes to us
through iJ [area), where, however, it is also applied to the
ark of the testimony (Ex. 25^^ etc.). The Bab. Flood-
narrative has the ordinary word for ship (elippu). The —
vessel is to consist internally of cells (lit. *
nests '), and is
to be coated inside and out with bitumen (cf. Ex. 2^).
13. ''iih N|i] not (as Est. 9^^) *has come to my knowledge,' but 'has
entered into my purpose.' This is better than (with Di.) to take N5 y^.
absolutely (as Am. 8^), and 'ja"? as 'according- to my purpose.' Dn'^gp] —
;
—
through them Ex. 82*' 9^1, Ju. 6^ etc. [nK.rnx [cri\n:f','?] (& Kal rrjv yrjv ;
U cum terra so <S CT^J. As Ols. says, we should expect 'n '?i;p (nxD
;
[Graetz] is unsuitable). But the error probably lies deeper. Ball

emends '-TnNi dhn n^ry^r^ ; Bu. '.thk on'np'D [en] '3 Dn'n:j'p Gu. on'n^'p Djn^ ;
rrnK. Eerdmans {ÂT Studien, i. 29) finds a proof of original poly-

theism. He reads '1JI on'n^pp ^nr\ : "we
about to destroy[the gods] are
the earth." — 14. nan] ®<S Kiôjrbs is the Egyptian
; STST Nnu'n. The word
teb{t) = 'chest,' 'sarcophagus' (Biîs, 6i^r], in (S of Ex. 2^-^): see Ges.
Th. Erman, ZDMG, xlvi. 123. Jensen {ZA^ iv. 272 f.), while admitting
;
the Egypt, etymolog-y, suggests a connexion with the Ass. ilippu ti-hi-
turn (a kind of ship). I am informed by Dr. C. H. W. Johns that
while the word is written as the determinative for 'ship,' it is not

certain that it was pronounced elippu. He thinks it possible that it
covers the word tabd^ found in the phrase ta-hi-e Bel ildni Marduk
(Del. Hwb. 699 a), which he is inclined to explain of the processional
barques of the gods. If this conjecture be correct, we may have
here the Bab. original of Heb. n;in. See Camb. Bibl. Essays (1909),
p. 37 ff. —
nsj-'xy] The old trans, were evidently at a loss (& {^k) ÔXujv :
Terpayupojif ; U
{de) lignis IcBvigatis Jer. ligna bituminata the word
;
:
being Eir. Xey. Lagarde {Setn. i. 64 f. Symm. ii. 93 f.) considered it a ;
mistaken contraction from nnsj (brimstone), or rather a foreign word

of the same form which meant originally pine-wood.' Others (Bochart, '
—
:;
VI. I3-I6 l6l
Somewhat similar details are given of the ship of Ut-

napiStim (p. 176). Asphalt is still lavishly applied in the
construction of the rude boats used for the transport of
naphtha on the Euphrates (see Cernik, quoted by Suess,
—
The Face of the Earthy 27). 15. Assuming- that the cuhit
is the ordinary Heb. cubit of six handbreadths (about 18 in.
see Kennedy, DB^ iv. 909), the dimensions of the ark are
such as modern shipbuilding has only recently exceeded
(see Ben. 140) though it is probably to be assumed that
;
it was rectangular in plan and sections. That a vessel of

these proportions would float, and hold a great deal (though
it would not carry cannon!), it hardly needed the famous
experiment of the Dutchman Peter Janson in 1609-21 to

prove (see Michaelis, Oriental, und Exeget, Bibliot, xviii.
27 f.). — 16. The details here are very confused and mostly
obscure. The word "inv (a^r. Xey.) is generally rendered
'light* or 'opening for light,* — either a single (square)
aperture (Tu.), or "a kind of casement running round the
al.) suppose it to contain the root of Kvirdpiajos, cypress,' a wood *
used by the Phoen. in shipbuilding-, and by the Eg-ypt. for sarcophagi

(De.). —
D'jp] Lagarde's conjecture, D'jp D'jp {OS^, ii. 95), has been
happily confirmed from Philo, Qucest. in Gen. ii. 3 {loculos loculos see :
Bu. 255), and from a Palest. Syr. Lectionary (Nestle, cited by Ho.).
—
On the idiom, see G-K. § 123^. n23] also B.ir. Xe7., = 'bitumen'
(C&FÊO), Ar. kufr, Aram. Knsi3, Ass. hupru (used in the Bab. Flood-
story). The native Heb. word for 'bitumen' is ion (ii^ 14I0, Ex. 2^).
15. npN] ffi^ n2Fin-nN. —
16. nnk] (& iiriawdyoiu (rdg. n?^?); all other Vns.
express the idea of Izg-hi (Aq. fxecTjfji^pivdv, S, Sta<pavis, fenestram, H
<S PrÔl, 'windows,' QT^ t.tj). They connected it (as Aq. shows) with
D!in_:^| noon-day
•
but tf onnii means properly summit (see G-B.
'
; '
'
BDB, S.V.), there seems nothing in Heb. to connect the root with
the idea of light. The meaning 'back' is supported by Ar. zahr. —
rthiiD^D n|V5fi hdn-'^ni] The suff. may refer either to the ins (whose gender
is unknown cf. Kon. S. p. 163) or to the n^ri

: the latter is certainly
:
most natural after nVs. The prevalent explanation that the cubit —
indicates either the breadth of the light-opening, or its distance below
—
the roof (see Di.) is mere guess-work. Bu. (following We.) removes
the first three words to the end of the v., rendering: " and according
to the cubit thou shalt finish it (the ark) " Di. objects that this would
:
require noNn. Ball reads 'ha n3D?n na-iN-Vxi, "and for its (the ark's)
whole length thou shalt cover it above"; Gu. niVîn 'n'Sni, "and on :
a pivot (see Is. 6*) thou shalt make it (the roof) revolve," a doubtful —
suggestion.
II
—
1 62 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
sides of the ark (except where interrupted by the beams

supporting the roof) a little below the roof" (Dri., so De.
Di. al.). Exegetical tradition is in favour of this view; but
the material arguments for it (see Di. 141) are weak, and
its etymological basis is doubtful (v.t.). Others (Ew. Gu.
G-B. al.) take it to mean the roof {lit. 'back': Ar. zahr).*
The clause and to a cubit thou shalt finish it above is unin-
telligible as it stands : some suggestions are given in the
footnote. —The door of the ark is to be in its (longer?)
side ; and the cells inside are to be arranged in three stories.
The ship of Ut-napistim appears to have had six decks,
divided into nine compartments (11. 61-63).
17-22. The purpose of the ark.— Gunkel thinks that
v.^^ commences a second communication to Noah ; and
that in the source from which P drew, the construction of
the ark was recorded before its purpose was revealed (as in
the parallel account of J see on 7^). That, of course, is :
possible but that P slurred over the proof of Noah's faith

;
because he had no interest in personal religion can hardly be

supposed. There is really nothing to suggest that '^'^^'
are
not the continuation of Behold 1 am about to bring
i3-i6^
— j^^
the Flood] Sbdh see above on 7^ (J), and in the Note below.
:
— 18. I will establish my covenant etc.] anticipating 9^-. De. J
and Gu. distinguish the two covenants, taking that here

referred to as a special pledge to Noah of safety in the
coming judgement ; but that is contrary to the usage of P,
17. 'Jin ':ni] cf. Dri. JPh. xi. 226. d:d ^non (cf. 7^)] The D'D is
certainly superfluous grammatically, but |'n«.T'?y is necessary to the
completeness of the sentence. (& omits d'd in 7^, and inserts it in g^^^ (P).
Whether it be an explanatory gloss of the unfamiliar ^130 (so most), or a
peculiar case of nominal apposition (see Dri. T. § 188), it is difficult to
decide on the idea that it is meant to distinguish the water-flood from
:
the light-flood, see above, p. 154. The pointing- D;p (JDMich. al.) is
objectionable on various g-rounds for one thing-, P never speaks of the:
Flood as coming from the sea.' J's phrase is '?i3Dn 'D 7'^' ^" cf. 9^^* (P).
'
: ;
— nng'?] uxy n^rvff^ but elision of n in Hiph. is unusual some Sam. MSS
; :
haven'ntynS (Ball). —
yi j:] 'expire,'— peculiar to P in Hex. (cf. 7^^ 25^-"
* According to Jensen {KIBy vi. i, 487), the Bab. ark had a dome-
shaped roof (niu^l}u).
— — — — —— :
VI. I7-VII. II 163
to whom the nnn is always a solemn and permanent embodi-

ment of the divine will, and never a mere occasional provision
(Kraetzschmar, Bundesvorstg. I97f.)« The entering- of the
ark is therefore not the condition to be fulfilled by Noah
under the covenant, but the condition which makes the
establishment of the promised covenant possible (Ho.). Thou
and thy sons^ etc.\ The enumeration isnever omitted by P
except in 8^ 8i«- i^
in 7I.— 19 f. One pair of
; cf. f^ : ct. J
each species of animals (fishes naturally excepted) is to be

taken into the ark. The distinction of clean and unclean
kinds belongs on the theory of P to a later dispensation
—20. The classification (which is repeated with slight
variations in 71*- î 8^^ 9^'' ^^) here omits wild beasts (n*n)
v.i. on v.^®. — Ifc^b; does not necessarily imply that the animals
came of themselves (Ra. lEz. al.), any more than K^nn (v.^^)
necessarily means that Noah had to catch them. 21. all —
food which is (or may he) eaten\ according* to the prescrip-
tions of i^^'-. —22. so did he] the pleonastic sentence is
peculiar to P; cf. esp. Ex. 4oi« (also Ex. 7« 1228- 60 2982. 42f.^
Nu. i^*, and often).

VII. 6, II, i3-i7a. Commencement of the Flood.
These vv. (omitting ^^^ [J]) appear to form an uninterrupted
section of the Priestly narrative, following immediately on
622. _5, Date of the Flood by the year of Noah's life. The
number 600 is a Babylonian ner; and it has been thought
that the statement rests ultimately on a Bab. tradition.
II. This remarkably precise date introduces a sort of diary
35^ 49*8, —
12 t. in all); elsewhere only in poetry (Holz. Etnl. 341).
19. (on anomalous pointing of art. see G-K. § 35/(1)). xxx reads
*nn]
rrnrr as in 8" ; and so (&, which takes the word in the limited sense of
wild animals, reading- [Kal dirb iravrwv tuv kti/jvuv Kal d. rr. r. e/OTreTw;/]
î
K. d. IT. T. Oripioiv 8^^).— D'jty] (&S> D'38' ti'iV as in 7'*^''.
(see i^^- So also
v.^.— 20. with txxf&Si'BW^ ; the 1 is necessary to the
B'Dr'?3D] Ins. 1
sense. (& has ^3 before each class, but rightly confines it to the MT
heterogeneous con (Ho.). For nmNrr trm, ux ffi have 'kh h]j b^dt "wh. —
21. rh^vh] see —
on i^^. 22. D'h^n] (& Ki^ptos 6 6.
6. On the syntax of the time-relation, see G-K. § 164 a. d^d] see 6".
— II. njB'— natra] «in the year of 600 years'; cf. G-K. § 1340.— For
*
17th day (3R has ' 27th
' see p. 167 below. '
d^dbti nij-ig] 8^, Mai. 3I'', =
;
D'DB'a 'k, 2 Ki. 7'- ^^ = Dns!p '», Is. 24^^ Apart from these phrases the
— —
of the Flood, which is carried through to the end see :
below, p. 167 though consistent with i^, is certainly

f. V.*,
rendered superfluous by it; and it is not improbable that
we have here to do with a fusion of authorities within the
Priestly tradition (p. 168). the fountains of the Great Deep]
(nsi Dinn see on i^).
: Outbursts of subterranean water are
a frequent accompaniment of seismic disturbances in the
alluvial districts of great rivers (Suess, 31-33); and a
knowledge of this physical fact must have suggested the
feature here expressed. In accordance with ancient ideas,
however, it is conceived as an eruption of the subterranean
ocean on which the earth was believed to rest (see p. 17).
At the same time the windows of heaven were opened] allowing
the waters of the heavenly ocean to mingle with the lower.
The Flood is thus a partial undoing of the work of creation ;
although we cannot be certain that the Heb. writer looked

on it from that point of view. Contrast this grandiose
cosmological conception with the simple representation of
J, who sees nothing in the Flood but the result of excessive
rain.
Gunkel was the first to point out the poetic character and structure
of ^'^^ note the phrase nan Dinn (Am. 7^, Is. 51^", Ps. 36^), and the
:
parallelismus tnembrorum. He considers the words a fragment of an

older version of the legend which (like the Babylonian) was written in
poetry. A similar fragment is found in 8^
13. On that very day] continuing v.^^. The idea that all
the animals entered the ark on one day (J allows a week)

has been instanced as an example of P's love of the
marvellous (Ho. Gu.).— 14-16. See on 6i»*-.— 17a. the Flood
word 'k is rare, and denotes a latticed opening, Hos. 13^, Is. 6o^
Ec. 12^. Here it can only mean 'sluices' the KarapaKrai of ffir "unites
;
the senses of waterfalls, trap-doors, and sluices" (De.). 13. Dvn Dsyn —
r^n] 1723.26^ Ex. i2i7-«-", Lv. 2314- 21- 28. 29. 30^ Dt. 32^^ Jos. 5I1 (all P);
—
Ho. Einl. 346. nf'?^] irregular gender: G-K. § 97c. Dnx] Better as —
(B^ WN (8^^- — 14.
^^). n;nn] distinguishing wild beasts from domestic
(cf. v.^^); see on 6^^. 'iji "n£3s ^d] ^ om. Cf. Ezk. 17^3 2g*,—ija,. D'yanN
DV] Bu. (264) ingeniously suggests that the last three consonants of
the gloss (D'D[y3iN]) represent the genuine d:o of P (6^' 7^). dSc adds
nS'"? D'yanNi. The half-verse cannot be assigned to J, because it would
be a mere repetition of v.^^
— '
VII. I2-VIII. IB 165
came upon the earth] as a result of the upheaval, v.^^. —The

words forty days are a gloss based on 7*- 12 {v.i.)\ the
Redactor treating J's forty days as an episode in the longer
chronology see on v.^^ (J). :
18-21, 24. Magnitude and effect of the Flood.—

While J confines himself to what is essential the extinction —
—
of life and leaves the universality of the Flood to be
inferred, P not only asserts its universality, but so to speak
proves it, by giving the exact height of the waters above
the highest mountains. — 18, 19. prevailed] "133, lit. *be
strong ' Aq. iveSvvafjLwOr)). The Flood is con-
(ffl^ cVc/cparet,
ceived as a contest between the water and the dry land.

20. fifteen cubits] is just half the depth of the ark. The
statement commonly explained in the light of 8* when
is :
the Flood was at its height the ark (immersed to half its
depth, and therefore drawing fifteen cubits of water) was
just over one of the highest mountains so that on the very ;
slightest abatement of the water it grounded The explana- !
tion is plausible enough (on the assumption that 8* belongs

to P) ; but it is quite as likely that the choice of the number
is purely arbitrary. —24. 150 days] the period of prevalence '
of the Flood, reckoned from the outbreak (v.^^) : see p. 168.

VIII. I, 2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14. Abatement of the Flood.
The judgement being complete, God remembers the survivors
in mercy. The Flood has no sooner reached its maximum
than it begins to abate (^^), and the successive stages of the
subsidence are chronicled with the precision of a calendar.
— I. remembered] in mercy, as 19^* 30^^ etc. The inclusion
of the animals in the kindly thought of the Almighty is a
touch of nature in P which should not be overlooked. — lb.
The mention of the wind ought certainly to follow the arrest
of the cause of the Deluge (2*). It is said in defence of the
present order that the sending of the wind and the stopping
19. iDDî] (K ^B3:i, with d:o as subj. (better). So v."^. — 20. n?a] C5
\T\-i\ {v\pu)d7)), is preferable to MT
(cf. Ps. 103^^). —onnn] (S (and 5) add
TO. {r}l/r]\d —
as in ^^ 21. D^Nn h3^] here distinguished from nK'3-'?3.
I. The addition of I& Kai iravTUiv tQ>v TrereLvCov k. rr. r. epirerCbv is here
very much in place. — otJ';i] The 1^ is rare and late: Nu. 17^° (P),
— —
of the elemental waters are regarded as simultaneous (Di.);

but that does not quite meet the difficulty. See, further, p.
155 above. —3b. at the end 0/ the 150 days] (7^*). See the foot-
note. — 4. The resting of the ark. on {one of) the mountains
of Ârarat] which are probably named as the highest known
to the Hebrews at the time of writing just as one form of ;
the Indian legend names the Himalayas, and the Greek,

Parnassus. Ararat (Ass. Urartu) is the NE part of
Armenia; cf. 2 Ki. 19^^ = Is. 37^^, Jer. 51^7. The name
Mount Ararat, traditionally applied to the highest peak
(Massis, Agridagh : c, 17,000 ft.) of the Armenian moun-
tains, rests on a misunderstanding of this passage.
The traditions regarding- the landing-place of the ark are fully

discussed by Lenorm. Or?\\. iff. cf. Tu. 133-136; No. Unters. 145 ff.
:
The district called Ararat or Urartu is properly that named in Armenian

Ayrarat^ and is probably identical with the country of the Alarodians
of Herod, iii. 94, vii. 79. It is the province of Armenia lying of NE
Lake Van, including the fertile plain watered by the Araxes, on the
right (SW) side of which river Mt. Massis rises.* Another tradition,
represented by Berossus (p. 177 below) and E° Si ("li3)t, locates the
mountain in Kurdistan, viz. at 6ebel 6(ldi, which is a striking
mountain SW
of Lake Van, commanding a wide view over the Meso-
potamian plain. This view is adopted in the Koran (Sur. xi. 46),
and has become traditional among the Moslems. —
The mountain *
of Nisir* of the cuneiform legend lies still further south, probably

in one of the ranges between the Lower Zab and the next tributary
to the S, the Adhem (Radinu) (Streck, ZA, xv. 272). Tiele and
Kosters, however {EB, 289), identify it with Elburz, the sacred
mountain of the Iranians (S of the Caspian Sea) and find a trace of ;
this name in the p.k'â. 6pos /card rrjv 'Apfxeviav Bdpis XeySfievov indicated as
the mountain of the ark by Nicolaus Damascenus (Jos. Ant. i. 95).
What the original Heb. tradition was, it is impossible to say. The
writers just named conjecture that it was identical with the Bab.,
Ararat being here a corruption of Hara haraiti (the ancient Iranian
name of Elburz), which was afterwards confused with the land of
Urartu. No. and Ho. think it probable that W^ and 5 preserve the
oldest name (Kardu), and that Ararat is a correction made when it was
Jer. s^y Est. 2^ T^**.

— 3b. u'won n^pn] Rd. wvonn ypa (Str. Ho. Gk.).
XXX 'n j'pD. — 4. For 17th fflr has 27th (7").
* " Ararat regio in Armenia campestris est, per quam Araxes

fluit, incredibilis ubertatis, ad radices Tauri montis, qui usque illuc
extenditur." Jerome on Is. 37^.
t BP has both N':mp and N^jmN, as has Berossus.
:
VIII. 3B-I9 16;
discovered that the northern mountains are in reality higher than those
of Kurdistan.
5. the tops of the mountains\ i.e, (as usually explained)

the other (lower) mountains. The natural interpretation
would be that the statement is made absolutely, from the
viewpoint of an imaginary spectator in which case it is ;
irreconcilable with v.* (cf. Hupf. Qu. 16 f.). 13a, 14. On —

New Year's day the earth's surface was uncovered, though
still moist but not till the 27th of the 2nd month was it
;
d?^> (arefacta : cf. Jer. 50^).

15-19. Exit
from the ark blessing on the :
—
animals. 17b. A renewal of the benediction of 1^2, which
had been forfeited by the excesses before the Flood. The
corresponding blessing on man is reserved for 9^^-. 19. The —
animals leave the ark according to their families^ —an example
of P's love of order.
The Chronology of the Flood presents a number of intricate though

—
unimportant problems. The Dates, according to and (K,* are as MT
follows
1. Commencement of Flood . 6ooth year, 2nd mo., 17th day (ffi 27th)
2. Climax (resting of ark) . „ 7th „ 17th „ (®^ 27th)
3. Mountain tops visible . „ ioth(C5iith), ist „
4. Waters dried up . . 6oist year, ist mo., ist „
5. Earth dry. . . .
,, 2nd ,, 27th „
The chief points are these (a) In f& the duration of the Flood is
:
exactly 12 months and since the 5 months between (i) and (2) amount
;
to 150 days (7^'' 8^), the basis of reckoning is presumably the Egyptian
solar year (12 mo. of 30 days + 5 intercalated days). The 2 months'
interval between (3) and (4) also agrees, to a day, with the 40 + 21 days
5. mom iiSn vn] 'went on decreasing' (G-K. § 113 w) less idiomatic ;
than'^(J).— TVnM] (S eleventh.— iz3l. After naty adds m "nV (7"). ©

15. D'hSn] (& Kipios 6 e. —
17. xxx(&3s read .Tnn-'?3i so v.^^ Nsin] ; —
Why Qr^ substitutes in this solitary instance N;^;n is not clear : see Kon.
I. p. 641. — U"ji nsi] (& ^1^ '1?' (Impv.), omitting the previous pxa \%'\m.
This is perhaps the better text : see on 9^*- U reads the whole as Impv.
— 19. e'en— K'Dn.T'?3] (& (better) cyDnn c'Dnn '?3i ']iyn-'?Di nonnrrSai. — D.TnnsB'D'?]
(Jer. 15') ; the pi. of pD (P's word in ch. i) is not in use (Ho.).
* Jub. V. 23-32 (cf. vi. 25 f.) adds several dates, but otherwise agrees
with MT, except that it makes the Flood commence on the 27th, gives
no date for the resting of the ark, and puts the drying of the earth on
the 17th, and the opening of the ark on the 27th day of the 2nd month.
— —
of 8®"i2
(J). In MT
the total duration is 12 mo. + 10 days; hence the
reckoning appears to be by lunar months of c. 29^ days, making up a
solar year of 364 days.* {h) The Massoretic scheme, however, pro-
duces a discrepancy with the 150 days for 5 lunar months fall short
;
of that period by two or three days. Either the original reckoning

was by solar months (as in (5), or (what is more probable) the 150
days belong to an older computation independent of the Calendar.f
It has been surmised that this points to a 10 months' duration of
the Flood (150 days' increase +150 days' subsidence); and (Ew. Di.)
that a trace of this system remains in the 74 days' interval between
(2) and (3), which amounts to about one-half of the period of sub-
sidence. — (c) Of the separate data of the Calendar no satisfactory
explanation has yet been given. The only date that bears its signifi-
cance on its face is the disappearance of the waters on the ist day of
the year and even this is confused by the trivial and irrelevant distinc-
;
tion between the drying up of the waters and the drying of the earth.
Why the Flood began and ended in the 2nd month, and on the 17th or
27th day, remains, in spite of all conjectures, a mystery.J {d) The ques-
tion whether the months are counted from the old Heb. New Year in the
autumn, or, according to the post-Exilic (Babylonian) calendar, from the
spring, has been discussed from the earliest times, and generally
decided in favour of the former view {Juh., Jos. Ant. i. 80, S^, Ra. and
most).§ The arguments on one side or the other have little weight. If
the second autumn month (Marche^wan) is a suitable time for the
commencement of the Flood, because it inaugurates the rainy season
in Palestine and Babylonia, it is for the same reason eminently unsuit-
able for its close. P elsewhere follows the Babylonian calendar, and
there is no reason to suppose he departs from his usual procedure here
(so Tu. Gu. al.). {e) The only issue of real interest is how much of the
chronology is to be attributed to the original Priestly Code. If there

be two discordant systems in the record, the 150 days might be the
reckoning of P, and the Calendar a later adjustment (Di.) or, again, the ;
150 days might be traditional, and the Calendar the work of P himself
(Gu.). On the former (the more probable) assumption the further
question arises whether the additions were made before or after the
amalgamation of J and P. The evidence is not decisive ; but the diver-
gences of (& from MT seem to prove that the chronology was still in
process of development after the formation of the Canon. See Dahse, —
ZATWt xxviii. 7 fF., where it is shewn that a group of Greek MSS
* So Jub. vi. 32. Cf. Charles's Notes, pp. 54 f. and 56 f.

t That it is a later redactional addition (Ho.) is much less likely.
t King (/TS, V. 204 f.) points out the probability that in the triennial
cycle of Synagogue readings the Parasha containing the Flood-story
fell to be read about the 17th lyyar. This might conceivably have
suggested the starting-point of the Calendar (but if so it would bring
down the latter to a somewhat late period), or a modification of an
original 27th (ffi), which, however, would itself require explanation.
§See De. 175 f., 183, 184; Di. i2^f.
— ;
IX. I 169
agree closely with Juh.., and argued (but unconvincingly) that the
original reckoning was a solar year, beginning and ending with the
27th of the 2nd month.
IX. 1-7. The new world-order. —The religious sig-

nificance of the Flood to the mind of the Priestly writers
appears and the following sections.
in this It marks the
introduction of a new and less ideal age of history, which

is^ that under which mankind now lives. The original
harmonious order of nature, in which all forms of slaughter
were prohibited, had been violated by both men and
animals before the Flood (see on 6î'-). This is now replaced
by a new constitution, in which the slaughter of animals for
human food is legalised and only two restrictions are
;
imposed on the bloodthirsty instincts of the degenerate

creatures (i) Man may not eat the
: life of an animal, and * '
(2) human blood may not be shed with impunity either by

man or beast.
The Rabbinical theologians were true to the spirit of the passage
when they formulated the idea of the Noachic commandments,' binding
'
on men generally, and therefore required of the proselytes of the gate '
'
though they increased their number. See Schiirer, iii. i28f.

Vv.^"'', both in substance and expression (cf. h'pdn'? n',T d3^, ddV 'nnj
^3-nN, and esp. form a pendant to i^^^- We have seen (p. 35)
nss'y pT),
that these vv. are supplementary to the cosmogony and the same is ;
true of the present section in relation to the story of the Flood. It does
not appear to be an integral part of the Deluge tradition and has no ;
parallel (as vv.**"^® have) in J or the Bab. narrative (Gu.). But that
neither this nor i^^^* is a secondary addition to P is clear from the
phraseology here, which is moulded as obviously on i^^ "^^^ as on i^*'.
To treat 9^'^ as a later insertion (Ho.) is arbitrary. On the contrary,
the two passages represent the characteristic contribution of P to the
ancient traditions.
I. An almost verbal repetition of i^^. The wives of

Noah and his sons are not mentioned, women having no
religious standing in the OT (so v.^). It is perhaps also
significant that here (in contrast to i^^) the animals are
excluded from the blessing (though not from the covenant
I. f& adds at end koX KaraKvpieia-are airijs, as i^. — 2. '?D31 — ^D3] ffi<g
Sd31 (bis). The 3 cannot be that of specification (7^1 S^' g^*^-^^ etc.),
since no comprehensive category precedes yet it is harsh to take it ;
as continuing the sense of hi; (<B), and not altogether natural to render
— — — — ;
yy 10. 12. i6fE,)^

— 2. Man's *
dominion over the animals is
' re-
established, but now in the form of /ear and dread {cf. Dt. 1 1^^)
towards him on their part. your hand they are gwen\

tnô
conveying the power of life and death (Lev. 26^, Dt. 19^
etc.). — 3. The central injunction : removal of the prohibition
of animal food. moving thing that is alive\ an unusually
vague definition life. Observe P's resolute

of animal —
ignoring of between clean and unclean
the distinction
animals. —
4. The first restriction. Abstention from eating
blood, or flesh from which the blood has not been drained,
is a fundamental principle of the Levitical legislation (Lev.
y27 jyio. i4j. and though to our minds a purely ceremonial
precept, is constantly classed with moral laws (Ezk. 33^'*

etc.). The theory on which the prohibition rests is re-
peatedly stated (Lev. ly^^-^^ Dt. 12^3) : the blood is the life,
and the and must be restored to God before

life is sacred,
the flesh can be eaten. Such mystic views of the blood are
primitive and widespread and amongst some races formed ;
a motive not for abstinence, but for drinking it.* All the
same it is unnecessary to go deeper in search of a reason for
the ancient Heb. horror of eating with the blood (i Sa.
i432ff.-j-).
5j 6. The second restriction : sanctity of human
life. * Life ' is expressed alternately by D'n and K'W. — On
DDTiK'Qjf', v.i. —1 will require^ exact an account of, or
equivalent for (42^2, Ezk. 33^, Ps. q^^ g^c). That God is
* along with' (Di.). — »ri3] juu. ffi Vfin^ :—3. SrnK D3^ 'nm] seems a slavish
repetition from i^. We should at least expect the art., which «a ('?3n)
supplies. — ^4. IDT is an explanatory apposition (if not a gloss) to irsn

but (& renders ^v atfiart xpvxv^, and & (01SD5 CJl.*_21i05), S. (o5 <ri)v
\pvxv oit/ju avTov) as a rel. cl. — 5. INI is suspicious after the preceding
"]«. MX. (DSDTriKi) omits. taken as circumscription of
QyntPSih] usually
gen., emphasising the sufF. 'your blood, your own' in contrast with
: —
the animals. It is better to render 'according to your persons,' ue.
individually; — **dem eloh. Sprachgebrauch entspricht distributive
Fassung des ^ —
doch am besten " (De.). vnx B^'tt td] 'from the hand of
See i?52, 234 f. Frazer, GB^, i. 133 f., 352 f. Kennedy, EB, 1544.
* ; ;
It has been thought that the offence warned against is the bar-
t
barous African custom of eating portions of animals still alive (^TJ, Ra.
De. al.) but that is a mistake.
;
— —
IX. 2-II 171
the avenger of blood is to J (ch. 4) a truth of nature ; to P

it rests on a positive ensictment.—from the hand of every
beast] see Ex. 2i28'-. —
6a is remarkable for its assonances
and the perfect symmetry of the two members D'n ^Sb' :
r\p\^^ to DnXB DnNH it is possibly an ancient judicial

I
formula which had become proverbial (Gu.). The JCST (vJ.)

read into the text the idea of judicial procedure ; others
(Tu. al.) suppose the law of blood-revenge to be contemplated.
manner of execution is left quite indefinite.
In reality the
6b. The reason for the higher value set on the life of man.
On the image of God see on i^^*-. 7. The section closes, as —
it began, with the note of benediction.
8-17. The Covenant and its Sign. — In P as in J
^g20-22j tj^g story of the Flood closes with an assurance that
the world shall never again be visited by such a catastrophe ;
and in both the promise is absolute, not contingent on the

behaviour of the creatures. In P it takes the form of a
covenant between God and all flesh, — the first of two
covenants by which (according to this writer) the relations
of the Almighty to His creatures are regulated. On the
content and scope of this Noachic covenant, see the con-
cluding note, p. 173 f.
— 9. establish my covenant] m.iv\^vci^x\X.
of 6^^. P's formula for the inauguration of the covenant
is always nna D^-pn or '3 jnj
(172, Nu. 2512) instead of the
more ancient and technical '2 n"n3. — n. The essence of the

covenant is that the earth shall never be devastated by a
Flood. Whether its idea be exhausted by this assurance
one man that of another.' The full expression would be B'S3"nN K"N td
VHK (Ols.); but all languages use breviloquence in the expression of
reciprocity. The construction is hardly more difficult than in 15^**
^226.33. a^jjjj 2^„ exact parallel occurs in Zee. 7^". See G-K. § 139c;
Bu. 283 ff. The vnNi of juu 5U makes nonsense ffi omits the previous ;
DHNn TDi. It would be better to move the Athnach so as to commence

a new clause with b"n td. 6. D^N3] —
om. W^ N'jn no'DD jnnoa is U ; : ^
still more explicit. — 7. na mi] 3J et implete earn (as v.^). Read na mi
after \^ (Nestle in Ball).
10. ^30] *
as many as '
; see on &. — pNH n'n ^dV] (&. om. Vd^] perhaps
= '
in short ' : cf. 23^^ see G-K. § 143 The sense of 'r\ 'n = animals
^. *
'
in general, immediately after the same expression in the sense of

*wild animals,' makes the phrase suspicious (Ho.). — 11. '?13D] xix. î3Dn ;
— —
is a difficult question, on which see p. 173 below. — 12-17. The

sign of the covenant. '*In times when contracts were not
reduced to writing-, it was customary, on the occasion of
solemn vows, promises, and other covenant transactions, * '
to appoint a sign, that the parties might at the proper time

be reminded of the covenant, and a breach of its observance
be averted. Exx. in common life: Gn. 21^^, cf. 38^^^-"
(Gu.).* Here the sign is a natural phenomenon the rain- —
bow; and the question is naturally asked whether the
rainbow is conceived as not having existed before (so lEz.
Tu.). That is the most obvious assumption, though not
perhaps inevitable. That the laws of the refraction and
reflection of light on which the rainbow depends actually
existed before the time of Noah is a matter of which the
writer may very well have been ignorant. — For the rest,
the image hardly appears here in its original form. The
brilliant spectacle of the upturned bow against the dark
background of the retreating storm naturally appeals to man
as a token of peace and good-will from the god who has
placed it there but of this thought the passage contains
;
no trace the bow is set in the cloud by God to remind

:
Himself of the promise He has given. It would seem as if

P, while retaining the anthropomorphism of the primitive
conception, has sacrificed its primary significance to his
abstract theory of the covenant with its accompanying sign.
On the mythological origin of the symbol, see below.
14-16. Explanation of the sign. — ^^^ continues ^**: and
(7vken) the how appears in the cloud \ the apodosis com-
mencing with ^^ (against De.). —The bow seems conceived
as lodged once for all in the cloud (so lEz.), to appear at
(K adds D!P.ux T\'vwrh\ so v.". 12. dmVn]

r\T\^S\ —
Kiyptos 6 ^. + (with ^
^) nr'?N. — hardly historic pf. ('I have set'), but either pf. of
13. •nnj]
instant action (' I do set'), or pf. of certainty (' I will set') see G-K. ;
§ io6i,m,n. —
14. py 'J3y3] lit. 'when I cloud with cloud'; see G-K.
§§ 52 fl? and 1177-. —

nrpn] (S5J 'riB'p so (& in v.^^— 15. n'n] »xx%
;
D3nN ^B'N H'nn (cf. v.^^)^
* Hence both of P's covenants are confirmed by a sign : the

Abrahamic covenant by circumcision, and this by the rainbow.
;
IX. 173
the right moment for recalling the covenant to the mind of

God. — 16. an everlasting covenant] so 177.13.19^ Ex. 31^^,
Lv. 248, Nu. i8i» 2513 (all P).
The idealisation of the rainbow occurs in many mythologies. To

the Indians was the battle-bow of Indra, laid aside after his contest
it
with the demons; among the Arabs " Kuzah shoots arrows from his
bow, and then hangs it up in the clouds" (We. Prol.^ 311) ; by Homer
it was personified as 'Ipts, the radiant messenger of the Olympians
(//.ii. 786, iii. 121; cf. Ov. Met. i. 270 f. ), but also regarded as a portent
of war and storm (xi. 27 f., xvii. 547 flf.). In the Icelandic Eddas it is
the bridge between heaven and earth. A
further stage of idealisation
is perhaps found in the Bab. Creation-myth, where Marduk's bow,
which he had used against Tiamat, is set in the heavens as a con-
stellation. (See Je. ^rZO^, 248; Di. 155 f Gu. 138 f. Dri. 99).— ; ;
These examples go far to prove a mythological origin of the symbolism

of this passage. It springs from the imagery of the thunderstorm
;
the lightnings are Yahwe's arrows when the storm is over. His bow ;
(cf. Hab. 3^-1^ Ps, 7"*-) is laid aside and appears in the sky as a sign
that His anger is pacified. The connexion with the Flood-legend (of
which there are several examples, though no Babylonian parallel has
yet been discovered) would thus be a later, though still ancient, adapta-
tion. The rainbow is only once again mentioned in OT (Ezk. i-^ ncpn
DB'jn Dva pyn -th' na-N : but see Sir. 43!"- 50^), and it is pointed out (by
We. al.) that elsewhere rr^j? always denotes the bow as a weapon, never
an arc of a circle.
With regard to the covenant itself, the most important question
theologically is whether it includes the regulations of vv.^^^ or is con-
fined to the unconditional promise that there shall no more be a flood.
For the latter view there is undoubtedly much to be said (see Valeton,
ZATW^ xii. 3f ). Vv.^"'^ and ^'^"^ are certainly distinct addresses, and
possibly of different origin (p. 169) and while the first says nothing;
of a covenant, the second makes no reference to the preceding stipula-

tions. Then, the sign of the covenant is a fact independent of human
action and it is undoubtedly the meaning of the author that the
;
promise stands sure whether the precepts of ^"'^ be observed or not.

On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that P, to whom the nna
means so much, should have dignified by that name the negative
assurance of v.^^. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, the nn3
marks a new ordering of the relations between God and the world, and
is capable of being observed or violated by those with whom it is
established. Analogy, therefore, is so far in favour of including the

or"dinances of ^"^ in the terms of the covenant (so Is. 24^** ). Kraetzschmar
{Bundesvorstg. 192 ff.) solves the difficulty by the supposition that the
idea of vv.^"^'^ is borrowed by P from J, and represents the notion of
the covenant characteristic of that document. It is much simpler to
recognise the existence of different tendencies within the priestly school
16. nai"?] ^ô n^.TJ'.— D^^^N p3] (& ua

;
174 FLOOD
and we have seen that there are independent reasons for regarding
vv.^"' as supplementary to the Deluge tradition followed by P. If that
be the case, it is probable that these vv. were inserted by the priestly
author with the intention of bringing under the Noachic nna those
elementary religious obligations which he regarded as universally
—
binding on mankind. On the conception of the nna in J and P, see
chs. 15 and 17.
28, 29. The death of Noah.

The form of these vv. is exactly that of the genealogy, ch. 5 while ;
they are at the same time the conclusion of the n: mSin (6^). How much
was included under that rubric? Does it cover the whole of P's
narrative of the Flood (so that mSin is practically equivalent to bio- *
graphy '), or does it refer merely to the account of his immediate

descendants in 6^^? The conjecture may be hazarded that 6^- 7^ ^'^
^28. 29 formed a section of the original book of mSin, and that into this
skeleton the full narrative of the Flood was inserted by one of the
priestly writers (see the notes on 2**). The relation of the assumed
genealogfy to that of ch. 5 would be precisely that of the m'?in of Terah
^jj27ff.)
to the m'jin of Shem (11^°"^). In each case the second gene-
alogy is extremely short further, it opens by repeating the last link
;
of the previous genealogy (in each case the birth of three sons, 5^^ 6^^)
and, finally, the second genealogy is interspersed with brief historical
notices. It may, of course, be held that the whole history of Abraham
belongs to the mVin of Terah that is the accepted view, and the reasons
;
for disputing it are those mentioned on p. 40 f. Fortunately the question

is of no great importance.
The Deluge Tradition.

I. Next to cosmogonies, flood-legends present perhaps themost
interestingand perplexing problem in comparative mythology. The
wide, though curiously unequal, distribution of these stories, and the
frequent occurrence of detailed resemblances to the biblical narrative,
have long attracted attention, and were not unnaturally accepted as
independent evidence of the strictly historical character of the latter.*
29. n'l, Heb. MSS (London Polyglott) and ux v.Ti.
*Andree {Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet, 1891), who has

collected between eighty and ninety such stories (of which he recognises
forty-three as original and genuine, and twenty-six as influenced by the
Bab.) points out, e.g., that they are absent in Arabia, in northern and
central Asia, in China and Japan, are hardly found anywhere in Europe
(except Greece) or Africa, while the most numerous and remarkable
instances come from the American continent (p. 1 25 f. ). The enumera-
tion, however, must not be considered as closed Naville {PSBA, 1904,
:
251-257, 287-294) claims to have found fresh proof of an Egyptian

—
LEGENDS 175
On the question of the universality of the Deluge* they have, of course,

no immediate bearing-, though they frequently assert it for it could
;
never be supposed that the mere occurrence of a legend in a remote

part of the globe proved that the Flood had been there. The utmost
that could be claimed is that there had been a deluge coextensive with
the primitive seat of mankind and that the memory of the cataclysm
;
was carried with them by the various branches of the race in their
dispersion. But even that position, which is still maintained by some
competent writers, is attended by difficulties which are almost insuper-
able. The scientific evidence for the antiquity of man all over the
world shows that such an event (if it ever occurred) must have taken
place many thousands of years before the date assigned to Noah and ;
that the tradition should have been preserved for so long a time among
savage peoples without the aid of writing is incredible. The most
reasonable line of explanation (though it cannot here be followed out in
detail) is that the great majority of the legends preserve the recollection
of local catastrophes, such as inundations, tidal waves, seismic floods
accompanied by cyclones, etc., of which many historical examples are
on record while in a considerable number of cases these local legends
;
have been combined with features due either to the diffusion of Baby-
lonian culture or to the direct influence of the Bible through Christian
missionaries, t In this note we shall confine our attention to the group
of legends most closely affiliated to the Babylonian tradition.
2. Of the Babylonian story the most complete version is contained
in the eleventh Tablet of the GilgameS Epic.:}: GilgameS has arrived at

the Isles of the Blessed to inquire of his ancestor UtnapiStim how he had
been received into the society of the gods. The answer is the long and
exceedingly graphic description of the Flood which occupies the bulk
of the Tablet. The hero relates how, while he dwelt at Surippak on
tradition in a text of the Book of the Dead, containing the following

words : further I (the god Turn) am going to deface all I have
"And
done this earth will become water (or an ocean) through an inundation,
;
as it was at the beginning" {I.e. p. 289).

* On the overwhelming geological and other difficulties of such a
hypothesis, see Dri. 99 f.
t See Andree, l.c. 143 fF. ; Suess, The Face of the Earthy i. 18-72 pass.
Cf. the discussion by Woods in DB^ ii. lyflf. ; and Dri. Gen. loi ff".
Lenormant, who once maintained the independence of the legends as
witnesses to a primitive tradition, afterwards expressed himself with more
reserve, and conceded the possibility that the Mexican and Polynesian
myths might be distant echoes of a central legend, emanating ultimately
from Babylonia {Orig.'^ i. 471 f., 488 ff".).
X Discovered by G. Smith, in 1872, among the ruins of Asshur-
banipal's library pubUshed 1873-4 and often translated since. See
;
;
KAT^, 55 ff. Jen. Kosmologie, 368 ff: Zimmern in Gn.^s Schupf. u. ChaoSy
; ;
423 ff.; Jen. KIB, vi. i, ii6ff". (the translation followed below); Ba.
Light from the East, 35 ff. Je. A TLO^, 228 ff.
; ; and the abridgments
in Jast. RBA^y 493 ff". KAT^, 545 ff. Texte u. Bilder, i. 50 ff.
; ;
: ; :
176 FLOOD
the Euphrates, it was resolved by the gods in council to send the Flood
(ab^bu) on the earth. Ea, who had been present at the council, resolved
to save his favourite Utnapistim ; and contrived without overt breach of
confidence to convey to him a warning of the impending- danger, com-
manding him to build a ship {elippv) of definite dimensions for the
saving of his life. The superlatively clever one {Atra-hasis, a name of
' '
Utnapistim) understood the message and promised to obey and was ;
furnished with a misleading pretext to offer his fellow-citizens for his

extraordinary proceedings. The account of the building of the ship
(1. 48 ff".) is even more obscure than Gn.
6^^'-^^
it is enough to say that
:
it was divided into compartments and was freely smeared with bitumen.
The lading of the vessel, and the embarking of the family and depend-
ants of Utnapistim (including artizans), with domestic and wild
animals, are then described (1. 81 ff.) and last of all, in the evening, on
;
the appearance of a sign predicted by Sama§ the sun-god, Utnapistim

himself enters the ship, shuts his door, and hands over the command to
the steersman, Puzur-Bel (90 ff".). On the following morning the storm
(magnificently described in 11. 97 ff. ) broke and it raged for six days
;
and nights, till all mankind were destroyed, and the very gods fled to
the heaven of Anu and ** cowered in terror like a dog."
" When the seventh day came, the hurricane, the Flood, the battle-
storm was stilled,
Which had fought like a (host?) of men.
The sea became calm, the tempest was still, the Flood ceased.
When I saw the day, no voice was heard,
And the whole of mankind was turned to clay.
When the daylight came, I prayed,
I opened a window and the light fell on my face,
I knelt, I sat, and wept,
On my nostrils my tears ran down.

I looked on the spaces in the realm of the sea
After twelve double-hours an island stood out.

At Nisir* the ship had arrived.
The mountain of Nisir stayed the ship ..." (11. 130-142),
This brings us to the incident of the birds (146-155)

**When the seventh dayf came
I brought out a dove and let it go.
The dove went forth and came back

Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.
I brought forth a swallow and let it go.
The swallow went forth and came back :
Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.

I brought forth a raven and let it go.
The raven went forth and saw the decrease of the waters,
It ate, it ... it croaked, but returned not again."
• See p. 166. t From the landing.

LEGENDS 177
On this UtnapIStim released all the animals ; and, leaving- the ship,
offered a sacrifice :
"The g-ods smelt the savour,

The gods smelt the goodly savour
The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer" (160 ff.).
The begin to quarrel, IStar and Ea reproaching Bel for

deities then
his thoughtlessness in destroying mankind indiscriminately, and Bel
accusing Ea of having connived at the escape of Utnapistim. Finally,
Bel is appeased and entering the ship blesses the hero and his wife
; :
'"Formerly Utnapistim was a man;

But now shall UtnapiStim and his wife be like to us the gods :
Utnapi§tim shall dwell far hence at the mouth of the streams.'

Then they took me, and far away at the mouth of the streams they
made me dwell" (202 ff.).*
3. The dependence of the biblical narrative on this ancient Babylonian

legend hardly requires detailed proof. It is somewhat more obvious in
the Yahwistic recension than in the Priestly but there is enough in the ;
common substratum of the two accounts to show that the Heb. tradition
as a whole was derived from Babylonia. Thus both J and P agree with
the Bab. story in the general conception of the Flood as a divine visita-
tion, its universality (so far as the human race is concerned), the
warnings conveyed to a favoured individual, and the final pacification
of the deity who had caused the Deluge. J agrees with Bab. in the
following particulars the entry of the hero into the ark after the
:
premonitory rain the shutting of the door the prominence of the

; ;
number 7 the episode of the birds the sacrifice and the effect of its
; ; ;
'
savour on the gods. P has also its peculiar correspondences (though
'
some of these may have been in J originally) e.g. the precise instruc- :
tions for building the ark the mention of bitumen (a distinctively Bab.
;
touch) ; the grounding of the ark on a mountain the blessing on the ;
survivors. t By the side of this close

parallelism, the and marked
material differences on which Nickel (p. 185) lays stress viz. as to (a) —
the chronology, (6) the landing-place of the ark, (c) the details of the
* Two
fragments of another recension of the Flood-legend, in which
the hero regularly named Atra-hasis, have also been deciphered.
is
One of them, being dated in the reign of Ammizaduga {c. 1980 B.C.),
is important as proving that this recension had been reduced to writing
at so early a time but it is too mutilated to add anything substantial

;
to our knowledge of the history of the tradition (see KIB^ 288-291).

The other is a mere scrap of twelve lines, containing Ea's instructions
to Atra-hasis regarding the building and entering of the ark, and the
latter's promise to comply {KIB, 256-259). See KAT^, 551 f. The —
extracts from Berossus preserved by Eus. present the Babylonian story
in a form substantially agreeing with that of the Gilgames Tablets,
though with some important variations in detail. See Euseb. Chron. i.
(ed. Schoene, cols. 19-24, 32-34 cf. Muller, Fr. Hist. Gr. ii. 501 ff.).
:
t See more fully Driver, p. 106.

12
178 FLOOD
sending" out of the birds, (d) the sign of the rainbow (absent in Bab.),
—
and [e) the name of the hero sink into insignificance. They are,
indeed, sufficient to disprove immediate literary contact between the
Heb. writers and the GilgameS Tablets but they do not weaken the
;
presumption that the story had taken the shape known to us in Baby-
lonia before it passed into the possession of the Israelites. And since
we have seen (p. 177) that the Babylonian legend was already reduced
to writing about the time usually assigned to the Abrahamic migration,
it is impossible to suppose that the Heb. oral tradition had preserved
an independent recollection of the historical occurrence which may be

assumed as the basis of fact underlying the Deluge tradition. The —
differences between the two narratives are on this account all the
more instructive. While the Genesis narratives are written in prose,
and reveal at most occasional traces of a poetic original (S'^^ in J, 7-^''
8^ in P), the Babylonian epic is genuine poetry, which appeals to a
modern reader in spite of the strangeness of its antique sentiment and
imagery. Reflecting the feelings of the principal actor in the scene, it
possesses a human interest and pathos of which only a few touches
appear in J, and none at all in P. The difference here is not wholly
due to the elimination of the mythological element by the biblical
writers it is characteristic of the Heb. popular tale that it shuns the
:
'fine frenzy' of the poet, and finds its appropriate vehicle in the
unaffected simplicity of prose recitation. In this we have an additional
indication that the story was not drawn directly from a Babylonian
source, but was taken from the lips of the common people although in ;
P ithas been elaborated under the influence of the religious theory of

history peculiar to that document (p. Ixf.). The most important
divergences are naturally those which spring from the religion of the
—
OT its ethical spirit, and its monotheistic conception of God. The
ethical motive, which is but feebly developed in the Babylonian account,
obtains clear recognition in the hands of the Heb. writers the Flood :
is a divine judgement on human corruption and the one family saved is

;
saved on account of the righteousness of its head. More pervasive

still is the influence of the monotheistic idea. The gods of the Baby-
lonian version are vindictive, capricious, divided in counsel, false to each
other and to men the writer speaks of them with little reverence, and
;
appears to indulge in flashes of Homeric satire at their expense. Over

against this picturesque variety of deities we have in Genesis the one
—
almighty and righteous God, a Being- capable of anger and pity, and
even change of purpose, but holy and just in His dealings with men.
It is possible that this transformation supplies the key to some subtle
affinities between the two streams of tradition. Bab.Thus in the
version the fact that the command to build the ark
precedes the
announcement of the Flood, is explained by the consideration that
Ea cannot explicitly divulge the purpose of the gods whereas in J ;
it becomes a test of the obedience of Noah (Gu. p. 66). Which re-

presentation is older can scarcely be doubted. It is true, at all events,
that the Bab. parallel serves as a "measure of the unique grandeur
of the idea of God in Israel, which was powerful enough to purify
LEGENDS 179
and transform in such a manner the most uncongenial and repugnant
features" of the pagan myth (tb.) and, further, that "the Flood-story
;
of Genesis retains to this day the power to waken the conscience of

the world, and was written by the biblical narrator with this paedagogic
and purpose" {ATLO"^, p. 252).
ethical
4. Of
other ancient legends in which some traces of the Chaldean
influence may be suspected, only a very brief account can here be given.
The Indian story, to which there is a single allusion in the Vedas, is
first fullyrecorded in the Qatapatha Brahmaija, i. 8. i-io.* It relates
how Manu, the first man, found one day in the water with which he
performed his morning ablution a small fish, which begged him to take
care of it till it should attain its full growth, and then put it in the sea.
Manu did so, and in gratitude for its deliverance the fish warned him of
the year in which the Flood would come, promising, if he would build
a ship, to return at the appointed time and save him. When the Flood
came the fish appeared with it Manu attached the cable of his ship
;
to the fish's horn, and was thus towed to the mountain of the north,
where he landed, and whence he gradually descended as the waters fell.
In a year's time a woman came to him, announcing herself as his
daughter, produced from the offerings he had cast into the water ; and
from this pair the human race sprang. In a later form of the tradition
(Mahabharata, iii. 187. 2ff.),t the Babylonian affinities are somewhat
more obvious but even in the oldest version they are not altogether
;
negligible, especially when we remember that the fish (which in the

Mahabharata is an incarnation of Brahma) was the symbol of the
god Ea.J —
The Greeks had several Flood-legends, of which the most
widely diffused was that of Deukalion, best known from the account
of Apollodorus (i. 7. 2fF.).§ Zeus, resolved to destroy the brazen race,
sends a heavy rain, which floods the greater part of Greece, and
drowns all men except a few who escape to the mountain tops. But
Deukalion, on the advice of his father Prometheus, had prepared a
chest, loaded it with provisions, and taken refuge in it with his wife
Pyrrha. After 9 days and nights they land on Parnassus Deukalion ;
sacrifices toZeus and prays for a new race of men these are produced :
from stones which he and his wife, at the command of the god, throw
over their shoulders. The incident of the ark seems here incongruous,
since other human beings were saved without it. It is perhaps an
(
* Translated by Eggeling, Sacred Books of the East, xii. 216 ff.

See
Usener, Die Sintfluthsagen {Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen,
iii.), 25 ff.
t Translated by Protap Chandra Roy (Calcutta, 1884), iii. 552 ff. See
Usener, 29 ff.
X Usener, however (240 ff.), maintains the entire independence of the
Indian and Semitic legends.
§ The earliest allusion is Pindar, 01. 9. 41 fF. Cf. Ovid, Met. i. 244-
415 Paus. i. 40. i, x. 6. 2, etc. The incident of the dove (in a peculiar
;
modification) appears only in Plut. De sollert. an. 13. Usener, 31 ff., —

244 ff.
l8o FLOOD
indication of the amalg-amation of a foreign element with local Deluge

traditions. —A Syrian tradition, with some surprising resemblances to P
in Gen., has been preserved by the Pseudo-Lucian {De dea Syra, 12, 13).
The wickedness of men had become so great that they had to be
destroyed. The fountains of the earth and the flood-gates of heaven
were opened simultaneously the whole world was submerged, and all
;
men perished. Only the pious Deukalion-Sisuthros * was saved with

his family in a great chest, into which as he entered all sorts of animals
crowded. When the water had disappeared, Deukalion opened the ark,
erected altars, and founded the sanctuary of Derketo at Hierapolis.
The hole in the earth which swallowed up the Flood was shown under
the temple, and was seen by the writer, who thought it not quite big
enough for the purpose. In Usener's opinion we have here the Chaldean
legend localised at a Syrian sanctuary, there being nothing Greek about
it except the name Deukalion. —
A Phrygian localisation of the Semitic
tradition is attested by the epithet kl^<j)t6% applied to the Phrygian
Apameia (Kelainai) from the time of Augustus (Strabo, xii. 8. 13, etc.);
and still more remarkably by bronze coins of that city dating from the
reign of Septimius Severus. On these an open chest is represented,
bearing the inscription NfiE, in which are seen the figures of the hero and
his wife a dove is perched on the lid of the ark, and another is flying
;
with a twig in its claws. To the left the same two human figures are
seen standing in the attitude of prayer, f The late date of these coins
makes the hypothesis of direct Jewish, or even Christian, influence
—
extremely probable. The existence of a Phoenician tradition is inferred
by Usener (248 ff".) from the discovery in Etruria and Sardinia of bronze
models of ships with various kinds of animals standing in them one :
of them is said to date from the 7th cent. B.C. There is no extant
written record of the Phoenician legend on Gruppe's reconstruction
:
from the statements of Greek mythographers see above, p. 141.

5. There remains the question of the origin of this widespread and
evidently very popular conception of a universal Deluge. That it
embodies a common primitive tradition of an historic event we have
already seen to be improbable. If we suppose the original story to have
been elaborated in Babylonia, and to have spread thence to other
peoples, it may still be doubtful whether we have to do *' with a legend
based upon facts" or "with a myth which has assumed the form of a
history." The mythical theory has been most fully worked out by
Usener, who finds the germ of the story in the favourite mythological
image of "the god in the chest," representing the voyage of the sun-
god across the heavenly ocean similar explanations were independently
:
propounded by Cheyne (EB, 1063 f.) and Zimmern {ih. 1058 f. KAT^, ;
555). Of a somewhat different order is the astrological theory advocated

by Jeremias (249 ff".). The Babylonian astronomers were aware that
'
* Text AevKoXiuva rbv lliKvdea, which Buttmann (Myfhologus, u 192)
ingeniously emended to A. r. XiavOia —a modification of the Zl<n0po$ of
Abydenus.
t See the reproductions in Usener, 45, and Je. ATLO^, 131, ^235.
—
LEGENDS l8l
in the course of ages the spring- equinox must traverse the watery
(southern) region of the Zodiac this, on their system, signified a sub-
:
mergence of the whole universe in water and the Deluge-myth symbo-

;
lises the safe passage of the vernal sun-god through that part of the
ecliptic. —
Whatever truth there may be in these theories, it is certain
that they do not account for the concrete features of the Chaldean
legend and if (as can hardly be denied) mythical motives are present,
;
it seems just as likely that they were grafted on to a historic tradition as
that the history is merely the garb in which a solar or astral myth
arrayed itself. The most natural explanation of the Babylonian
narrative is after all that it is based on the vague reminiscence of
some memorable and devastating flood in the Euphrates valley, as to the
physical possibility of which, it may suffice to quote the (perhaps too
literal) description of an eminent geologist "In the course of a seismic
:
period of some duration the water of the Persian Gulf was repeatedly
driven by earthquake shocks over the plain at the mouth of the
Euphrates. Warned by these floods, a prudent man, Hasis-adra, i.e.
the god-fearing philosopher, builds a ship for the rescue of his family,
and caulks it with pitch, as is still the custom on the Euphrates. The
movements of the earth increase he flees with his family to the ship
;
;
the subterranean water bursts forth from the fissured plain ; a great
diminution in atmospheric pressure, indicated by fearful storm and
rain, probably a true cyclone, approaches from the Persian Gulf, and
accompanies the most violent manifestations of the seismic force. The
sea sweeps in a devastating flood over the plain, raises the rescuing
vessel, washes it far inland, and leaves it stranded on one of those
Miocene foot-hills which bound the plain of the Tigris on the north and
north-east below the confluence of the Little Zab " (Eduard Suess, The
Face of the Earth, i. 72). See, however, the criticism of SoUas, The
Age of the Earthy 316.
IX. 18—27. Noah as Vine-grower: His Curse

and Blessing (J).
Noah is here introduced in an entirely new character, as

the discoverer of the culture of the vine ; and the first victim
to immoderate indulgence in its fruit. This leads on to an
account of the shameless behaviour of his youngest son,
and the modesty and filial feeling of the two elder; in
consequence of which Noah pronounces a curse on Canaan
—
and blessings on Shem and Japheth. The Noah of vv.^^"^'^
almost certainly comes from a different cycle of tradition
from the righteous and blameless patriarch who is the
hero of the Flood. The incident, indeed, cannot, without
violating all probability, be harmonised with the Flood-
;
1 82 noah's drunkenness (j)
narrative at all. In the latter, Noah's sons are married men

who take their wives into the ark (so expressly in P, but
the same must be presumed for J) ; here, on the contrary,
they are represented as minors living in the * tent ' with
their father ; and the conduct of the youngest is obviously
conceived as an exhibition of juvenile depravity (so Di. Bu.
al.). The presumption, therefore, is that vv.20-27 belong to
a stratum of J which knew nothing of the Flood and this ;
conclusion is confirmed by an examination of the structure

of the passage.
First of all, we observe that youngest son
in v.^^ the offender is the
of Noah, and in v.^^ is while Shem and Japheth are
named Canaan ;
referred to as his brothers. True, in v.^^ the misdeed is attributed to

'
Ham the father of Canaan but the words '5n dpi have all the appear-
'
;
ance of a gloss intended to cover the transition from

^s^-
to ôff- and ;
the clause JJ?:? 'ax Nin Dm in ^^^ can have no other purpose. Now ^^ is
the close of J's * account of the Flood and ^^ points forward either to;
J's list of Nations (ch. lo), or to the dispersion of the

Tower of Babel.
Vy 20-27
interrupt this connexion, and must accordingly be assigned to a
separate source. That that source is, however, still Yahwistic, is shown
partly by the language (niH!, v.^^ [in spite of D'hSn in v.^'j and ^n.»l, v.^") ;
and more especially by the connexion with 5^^ (see pp. 3, 133 f ). It is
clear, therefore, that a redactor (RJ) has here combined two Yahwistic
documents, and sought to reduce the contradiction by the glosses in
18b
and 22.
18, 19. Connecting verses (see above). Noah's sons are —

here for the first time named in J, in harmony, however,
with the repeated notices of P (5^^ 6^0 7^^). On the names

see on ch. 10 (p. 195 f.). —20.
Noah the husbandman was the
first who planted a vineyard] a fresh advance in human —
civilisation. The allusion to Noah as the husbandman is
19. pN.rV^ n:£33] 'the whole (population of the) earth was scattered.'
For the construction cf. lo^— n^^j] hardly contracted Niph. from ^ fsa
[ = ps] (G-K. § 67 dd); but from V Yî, whether this be a secondary
formation from ^ ps (G-B.^^ 465 f), or an independent word (BDB,
659). Cf. I Sa. 13!^ Is. 11^2 333.-20. '131 Vnî]cf ^^ 6^ lo^ ii^ 4412 (J)
41^^ (E). The rendering *
Noah commenced as a husbandman' (Dav.
§ 83, ^. 2) is impossible on account of the art. (ct. i Sa. 3^) to insert :
nrnV (Ball) does not get rid of the difficulty. The construction with 1
cons., instead of inf., is very unusual (Ezr. 3^) ; hence Che. {EB, 3426^),
* Comp. nvsa with lo^^ „4. 8.9. a^d pNn-'?3( = the population of the
earth) with ii^-'' (Bu.) ; ni-'j-i nVx n^^ with lo^^ 22^3 25* (Ho.).
*
IX. 18-24 183
perplexing. If the text be right {v.i'.), it implies a previous

account of him as addicted to (perhaps the inventor of)
agriculture, which now in his hands advances to the more
refined stage of vine-growing. See the note on p. 185.
Amongst other peoples this discovery was frequently attributed to
a god (Dionysus among the Greeks, Osiris among the Egyptians),
intoxication being regarded as a divine inspiration. The orgiastic
character of the religion of the Canaanites makes it probable that the
same view prevailed amongst them and it has even been suggested that
;
the Noah of this passage was originally a Canaanitish wine-god (see

Niebuhr, Geschichte d. Ebraischen Zeitalters, 36 ff.). The native religion
of Israel (like that of Mohammed) viewed
form of indulgence with
this
abhorrence and under strong religious enthusiasm the use of fermented
;
drinks was entirely avoided (the Nazirites, Samson, the Rechabites).

This feeling is reflected in the narrative before us, where Noah is
represented as experiencing in his own person the full degradation to
which his discovery had opened the way. It exhibits the repugnance
of a healthy-minded race towards the excesses of a debased civilisa-
tion. —
Since the vine is said to be indigenous to Armenia and Pontus
(see De. Di. ), it has naturally been proposed to connect the story with
the landing of the ark in Ararat. But we have seen that the passage
has nothing to do with the Deluge-tradition and it is more probable ;
that it is an independent legend, originating amidst Palestinian sur-

roundings.
21. uncovered himself] the same result of drunkenness in

—
Hab. 2^^, La. 4^1. 22. There is no reason to think (with
Ho. and Gu.) that Canaan was guilty of any worse sin than
the Schadenfreude implied in the words. Heb. morality
called for the utmost delicacy in such matters, like that
evinced by Shem and Japheth in v.^^ 24. iî^n 1:3 cannot —
mean 'his younger son' (fflrJJ) {i.e. as compared with
following Kue. {ThT, xviii. 147), proposes E'lq.^ for e^'n Noah was the :
*
first toplough the ground.' That reading would be fatal to any

connexion of the section with Gn. 3, unless we suppose a distinction
between nny (manual tillage) and i^nn. Strangely enough, Ra. (on s^^)
repeats the Haggadic tradition that Noah invented the ploughshare ;
but this is probably a conjecture based on a comparison of 3" with 529.

—22. '^r^] (& pref. Kal i^€\9ibv.—2S. nJ'Di^n] On the art., see G-K. § 126 r.
That it was which Canaan had previously taken away, and that
ihe 'b
this notice was deliberately omitted by J (Gu.), is certainly not to be
inferred. The 'b is the upper garment, which was also used for
—
sleeping in (Ex. 22^6 etc.). 24. fiT'i] on the irreg. seghol, see G-K.
* So Mr. Abrahams, in a private communication.

— — —:'
184 noah's drunkenness (j)
Shem); still less 'his contemptible son '

(Ra.); or Ham's
youngest (lEz.). The conclusion is not to be evaded that
the writer follows a peculiar genealogical scheme in which
Canaan is the youngest son of Noah. 25-27. Noah's curse —
and blessings must be presumed to have been legible in the
destinies of his reputed descendants at the time when the
legend took shape (cf. 2728^- ^^^-
49) (on the fulfilment see the
concluding note, p. 186 f.). The dominant feature is the curse
on Canaan, which not only stands first, but is repeated in
the blessings on the two brothers. 25. The descendants of —
Canaan are doomed to perpetual enslavement to the other
two branches of the human family. a servant of servants]
means 'the meanest slave' (G-K. § 1332). to his brethren]
not the other members of the Hamitic race, but (as is clear
from the following vv.) to Shem and Japheth. 26. Blessed —
be Yahwe the God of Shem] The idea thus expressed is not
satisfactory. To bless Yahwe means no more than to
* '
praise and an ascription of praise to Yahwe is only

Him ;
in an oblique sense a blessing on Shem, inasmuch as it

assumes a religious primacy of the Shemites in having
Yahwe for their God. Bu. (294 f.) proposed to omit '^\P^, and
read ^^ TV\r}\ ^113 : Blessed of Yahwe be Shem (cf. 2431' 2629
[both J]). Di.'s objection, that this does not express wherein
the blessing consists, applies with quite as much force to
the received text. Perhaps a better emendation is that of
Graetz DK' ^^ns '> ^jili (7]nn^ would be still more acceptable)
[May] Yahwe bless the tents of Shem see the next v. 27. ;
—
May God expand (riD^) Yepheth : a play on the name (J^?.').
The use of the generic D'^ni'^^ implies that the proper name
§ 70 n. — 26. iD^ may stand either for Dn^ (coll.) or i"? : see Note 3 in
G-K. § 103/ The latter is the more natural here. Ols, {MBBA, June
27a^ (db'— pci), and
1870, 382) proposed to omit -^^, substituting retain
2^''
with ref. of pi. suff. to vnx. <&. has avrov in êb and airOiv in ^^
27. ps:] dG irXarvyai, 'B dilatet, etc. The f^ nns in the sense ' be spacious
is extremely rare in Heb. (Pr. 20^^ [?2428]), and the accepted rendering
not beyond challenge. No. {BL, iii. 191) denies the geographical sense,
and explains the word from the frequent Semitic figure of spaciousness
for prosperity. This would almost require us to take the subject of the
following clause to be God {y.s,\
—
IX. 25-27 1
85
niiT' was the peculiar property of the Shemites. a7id may

he dwell] or that he may dwell. The subject can hardly
be God ijub. ^"^j Ber. al.), which would
R, Ra. lEz. No.
convey no Japheth
blessing to the wish refers most;
naturally to Japheth, though it is impossible to decide

whether the expression dwell in the tents of denotes
*
friendly intercourse (so most) or forcible dispossession (Gu.).

For the latter sense cf. Ps 78^^, i Ch. 5^^. —A Messianic
reference to the ingathering of the Gentiles into the Jewish
or Christian fold (^T^ Fathers, De. al.) is foreign to the
thought of the passage see further below.
:
The question of the origfin and significance of this remarkable

narrative has to be approached from two distinct points of view. I. In —
one aspect it is a culture-myth, of which the central motive is the dis-
covery of wine. Here, however, it is necessary to distinguish between
the original idea of the story and its significance in the connexion of the
Yahwistic document. Read in its own light, as an independent frag-
ment of tradition, the Incident signalises the transition from nomadic to
agricultural life. Noah, the first husbandman and vine-grower, is a
tent-dweller (v.^^) and this mode of life is continued by his oldest and
;
favoured son Shem (-'). Further, the identification of husbandry and

vine culture points to a situation in which the simpler forms of agri-
culture had been supplemented by the cultivation of the grape. Such a
situation existed in Palestine when it was occupied by the Hebrews.
The sons of the desert who then served themselves heirs by conquest to
the Canaanitish civilisation escaped the protracted evolution of vine-
growing from primitive tillage, and stepped into the possession of the
farm and the vineyard at once. From this point of view the story of
Noah's drunkenness expresses the healthy recoil of primitive Semitic
morality from the licentious habits engendered by a civilisation of which
a salient feature was the enjoyment and abuse of wine. Canaan is the
prototype of the population which had succumbed to these enervating
influences, and is doomed by its vices to enslavement at the hands of
hardier and more virtuous races. —
In the setting in which it is placed
by the Yahwist the incident acquires a profounder and more tragic
significance. The key to this secondary interpretation is the prophecy
of Lamech in 5^^, which brings it into close connexion with the account
of the Fall in ch. 3 (p. 133). Noah's discovery is there represented as
an advance or refinement on the tillage of the ground to which man was
sentenced in consequence of his first transgression. And the oracle of
Lamech appears to show that the invention of wine is conceived as a
relieffrom the curse. How far it is looked on as a divinely approved
mode of alleviating the monotony of toil is hard to decide. The
moderate use of wine is certainly not condemned in the OT on the :
other hand, it is impossible to doubt that the light in which Noah is

—
1 86 noah's drunkenness (j)
exhibited,and the subsequent behaviour of his young'est son, are meant

to convey an emphatic warning against the moral dangers attending
this new step in human development, and the degeneration to which it
may lead.
In the narrative, however, the cultural motive is crossed by an
II.
ethnographic problem, which is still more difficult to unravel. Who are

the peoples represented by the names Shem, Japheth, and Canaan?
Three points may be regarded as settled that Shem is that family to
:
which the Hebrews reckoned themselves ; that Canaan stands for the
pre-Israelitish inhabitants of and that the servitude of
Palestine ; ,
Canaan to Shem by
at least includes the subjugation of the Canaanites
Israel in the early days of the monarchy. Beyond this everything is
uncertain. The older view, which explains Shem and Japheth in terms
of the Table of Nations (ch. lo), i.e. as corresponding roughly to what
—
we call the Semitic and Aryan races, has always had difficulty in dis-
covering a historic situation combining Japhetic dominion over the
Canaanites with a dwelling of Japheth in the tents of Shem.* To
understand the latter of an ideal brotherhood or religious bond between
the two races brings us no nearer a solution, unless we take the pass-
age as a prophecy of the diffusion of Christianity and even then it;
fails to satisfy the expressions of the text (Di., who

explains the figure
as expressing the more kindly feeling of the Heb. towards these races,
as compared with the Canaanites). —
A number of critics, starting
from the assumption that the oracles reflect the circumstances and
aspirations of the age when the Yahwistic document originated, take
Shem as simply a name for Israel, and identify Japheth either with
the Philistines (We. Mey.) or the Phoenicians (Bu. Sta. Ho.). But that
the Hebrews should have wished for an enlargement of the Philis-
tines at their own expense is incredible and as for the Phoenicians,
;
though their colonial expansion might have been viewed with compla-
cency in Israel, there is no proof that an occupation of Israelitish
territory on their part either took place, or would have been approved
by the national sentiment under the monarchy. The alienation of a
portion of Galilee to the Tyrians (i Ki. q"-'^^ (Bu.) is an event little
likely to have been idealised in Heb. legend. The difficulties of this
theory are so great that Bertholet has proposed to recast the narrative
with the omission of Japheth, leaving Shem and Canaan as types of the
racial antipathy between the Hebrews and Canaanites the figure of :
Japheth, and the blessing on him, he supposes to have been introduced
* As regards the former, the expulsion of Phoenician colonists from

the Mediterranean coasts and Asia Minor by the Greeks (Di.) could
never have been described as enslavement (see Mey. GA^, i. 311 f.) ; and
the capture of Tyre by Alexander, the Roman conquest of Carthage,
etc. (De.), are events certainly beyond the horizon of the writer, unless, —
indeed, we adopt Berth. 's suggestion (see above), that
very late. v.^'' is
For the latter, Di. hints at an absorption of Japhetic peoples in the

Semitic world-empires but that would rather be a dwelling of Shem
;
in the tents of Japheth.

—
IX. 27-X. 187
after the time of Alexander the Great, as an expression of the friendly

feeling of the Jews
for their Hellenic conquerors.* Gu.'s explanation, —
which put forward with all reserve, breaks ground in an opposite
is
direction. Canaan, he suggests, may here represent the great wave of

Semitic migration which (according to some recent theories) had swept
over the whole of Western Asia {c. 2250 B.C.), leaving its traces in
Babylonia, in Phoenicia, perhaps even in Asia Minor,t and of vrhich the
laterCanaanites of Palestine were the sediment. Shem is the Hebraeo-
Aramaic family, which appears on the stage of history after 1500 B.C.,
and no doubt took possession of territory previously occupied by
Canaanites. It is here represented as still in the nomadic condition.
Japheth stands for the Hittites, who in that age were moving down
from the north, and establishing their power partly at the cost of both
Canaanites and Arameans. This theory hardly explains the peculiar
contempt and hatred expressed towards Canaan and it is a somewhat ;
serious objection to it that in lo^"* (which Gu. assigns to the same source
as g^^') Heth is the son of Canaan. A better defined background would
be the struggle for the mastery of Syria in the 14th cent. B.C. J If, as
many Assyriologists think probable, the Habiri of the Tel-Amarna
Letters be the D'l^y of the OT, i.e. the original Hebrew stock to
which Israel belonged, —
it would be natural to find in Shem the repre-
sentative of these invaders; for in 10^^ (J) Shem is described as 'the

father of all the sons of Eber. Japheth would then be one or other of
'
the peoples who, in concert with the Habiri, were then seeking a foot-
hold in the country, possibly the Suti or the Amurri, less probably (for
the reason mentioned above) the Hittites. These surmises must be—
taken for what they are worth. Further light on that remote period of
history may yet clear up the circumstances in which the story of Noah
and his sons originated ; but unless the names Shem and Japheth should
be actually discovered in some historic connexion, the happiest conjec-
tures can never effect a solution of the problem.
Ch. X.—Tke Table of Peoples (P and J).
In its present form, the chapter is a redactional composi-

tion, in which are interwoven two (if not three) successive
attempts to classify the known peoples of the world, and to
* See We. Comp. 14 f. ; Bu. Urg. 325 ff. ; Sta. GVI, i. 109; Mey.
GA^y i. p. 214 ; Bertholet, Stellung d. Isr. zu. d. Fremden, 76 f. Meyer's
later theory {INS, 220 f. ), that Japheth ( = Eg. Kefti ?) stands for the whole
body of northern invaders in the 1 2th , cent. to whom the Philistines be-
longed, does not diminish the improbability that such a prophecy should
have originated under the monarchy.
t See Mey. GA^, i. p. 212 ff. ; Wi. GI, i. 37, 130, 134; Peiser, KIB,
iv. p. viii.
X Already suggested by Ben. (p. 158), who, however, is inclined to

identify the Habiri with Japheth.
;
1 88 THE TABLE OF PEOrLES (p AND j)
exhibit their origin and mutual relationships in the form of

a genealogical tree.
Analysis. — The separation of the two main sources is due to the

lucid and convincing- analysis of We. {Coinp.^ 6flF.). The hand of P is
easily recog^nised in the superscription (^* nipiin .vn),and the methodical

uniformity of the tripartite scheme, with its recurrent opening' and
closing- formulas.The heading-s of the three sections are : ns; 'i? (2),
°"
on ^J3? (^), and ^•<v u? (^2) ; the respective conclusions are found in
(mutilated) summary. This framework, how-
'*'• ^^, v.^^ being- a final
ever, contains several continuous sections which obviously belong to J.
(«)
^"^2 the account of Nimrod (who is not even mentioned by P among-
.
the sons of Kush) stands out both in character and style in strong- con-
trast to P : note also -h\ instead of TVin (S), ni.T (9). {h) ^^*-
: the sons of
Mizraim {y. i"?;). (c) ^^-i^ : the Canaanites (n^:). {d) î- ^-^ : the Shemites
(^^, 21. 25 .
^^, 26^^ — Duplication of sources is further proved by the twofold
introduction to Shem (2i||22)^

^nd the discrepancy between ' and ^^* re-
g-arding n^'iq and n?^. The documents, therefore, assort themselves as
follows :
p . la . 2-5 . 6f. 20 . 22f. 31 . S3
T . lb l'?\ . 8-12 . 13f. . 16-19 . 21. 25-30

J • \' ) > » > >
Yy 9. i6-i8a
a^fjfj
24 g^j-g rcg-ardcd by We. and most subsequent writers
as interpolations see the notes. The framework of P is made the
:
basis of the Table and so far as appears that document has been pre-
;
served in its orig-inal order. In J the genealogy of Shem ('^^- -^'^°) is

probably complete that of Ham (^^*- ^^^•) is certainly curtailed while
; ;
every trace of Japheth has been obliterated (see, however, p. 208).

Whether the Yahwistic fragments stand in their original order, we have
no means of determining.
The analysis has been carried a step further by Gu. {^ 'jî.)^ who
first raised the question of the unity of the Yahwistic Table, and its
connexion with the two recensions of J which appear in ch. 9. He
agrees with We. Di. al. that 9^^^- forms the transition from the story
of the Flood to a list of nations -which is partly represented in ch. 10
10^^ being the immediate continuation of 9^^ in that recension of J (Ji).
But he tries to show that 920-2? -was also followed by a Table of Nations,
and that to it most of the Yahwistic fragments in ch. 10 belong (^' ^°'^2'
15. 21. 25-29 _
J e)^ This conclusion is reached by a somewhat subtle
examination of v.^^ and -w.^^'^^. In v.^^ Shem is the 'elder brother of
Japheth,' which seems to imply that Japheth was the second son of Noah
as in 9^°^- hence we may surmise that the third son was not Ham but
;
Canaan. This is confirmed by the apparent contradiction between

" and ^^''' ^^. In ^^ the northern limit of the Canaanites is Zidon, whereas
in ^^ Canaan includes the Hittites, and has therefore the wider geo-
graphical sense which Gu. postulates for 920-27 (see p. 186 above). He
also calls attention to the difference in language between the eponymous
)yj? in ^5 and the gentilic 'J;;.:|in in
^^'^' ^^,
and considers that this was a
characteristic distinction of the two documents. From these premises
the further dissection of the Table follows easily enough. Vv.^"^- may be
CH. X, 189
assigtied to J" because of the peculiar use of hm in ^ (cf 9^*^ 4^). V.^''*
must any case be JJ, because it is inconceivable that Eg^ypt should
in
ever have been thought of as a son of Canaan ^'^^ follow ^^ (J«). V.^ ;
isassigned to JJ solely on account of its resemblance to ^^ It cannot

be denied that these arguments (which are put forward with reserve)
have considerable cumulative force and the theory may be correct.
;
At the same time it must be remembered (i) that the distinction between
a wider and a narrower geographical conception of Canaan remains a
brilliant speculation, which is not absolutely required either by g^^^- or
10^' ; and (2) nothing to show that the story of Noah, the
that there is
vine-grower, was followed by a Table of Nations at all. A genealogy

connecting Shem with Abraham was no doubt included in that docu-
ment but a writer who knows nothing of the Flood, and to whom
;
Noah was not the head of a new humanity, had no obvious motive for
attaching an ethnographic survey to the name of that patriarch.
Further criticism may be reserved for the notes.
The names in the Table are throughout eponymous :
that is to say, each nation is represented by an imaginary

personage bearing its name, who is called into existence for
the purpose of expressing its unity, but is at the same time
conceived as its real progenitor. From this it was an easy
step to translate the supposed affinities of the various
peoples into the family relations of father, son, brother, etc.,
between the eponymous ancestors while the origin of the ;
existing ethnic groups was held to be accounted for by the

expansion and partition of the family. This vivid and con-
crete mode of representation, though it was prevalent in
antiquity, was inevitably suggested by one of the commonest
idioms of Semitic speech, according to which the individual
members of a tribe or people were spoken of as sons or ' '
* daughters of the collective entity to which they belonged.

'
It may be added that (as in the case of the Arabian tribal
genealogies) the usage could only have sprung up in an

age when the patriarchal type of the family and the rule of
male descent were firmly established (see Rob. Sm. KM^,
3ff-)-
That this is the principle on which the Tables are constructed

appears from a slight examination of the names, and is universally
admitted. With the exception of Nimrod, all the names that can be
identified are those of peoples and tribes (Madai, Sheba, Dedan, etc.)
or countries (Mizraim, Havilah, etc. —
in most cases it is impossible to
say whether land or people is meant) or cities (Zidon) some are ;
gentilicia (Jebusite, Hivvite, etc.) ; and some are actually retained in

;
190 THE TABLE OF PEOPLES (p AND j)
the pi. (Rodanim, Ludim, etc.). Where the distinctions between

national and geographical designations, between singular, plural, and
collective names, are thus effaced, the only common denominator to
which the terms can be reduced is that of the eponymous ancestor.
It was the universal custom of antiquity in such matters to invent a
legendary founder of a city or state * and it is idle to imagine any
;
other explanation of the names before us. —

It is, of course, another
question how far the Hebrew ethnographers believed in the analogy

on which their system rested, and how far they used it simply as a
convenient method of expressing racial or political relations. When
a writer speaks of Lydians, Lybians, Philistines, etc., as 'sons' of
Egypt, or 'the Jebusite,' 'the Amorite,' 'the Arvadite as 'sons' of '
Canaan, it is difficult to think, e.g., that he believed the Lydians to be

descended from a man named Lydians (nniV), or the Amorites from
'
'
one called 'the Amorite' ('ib^n) and we may begin to suspect that
;
the whole system of eponyms is a conventional symbolism which was

as transparent to its authors as it is to us.f That, however, would be
a hasty and probably mistaken inference. The instances cited are
exceptional, —
they occur mostly in two groups, of which one {^^^')
is interpolated, and the other (^^'•) may very well be secondary too
and over against them we have to set not only the names of Noah,
Shem, etc., but also Nimrod, who is certainly an individual hero, and
yet is said to have been 'begotten' by the eponymous Kush (Gu.).
The bulk of the names lend themselves to the one view as readily as
to the other but on the whole it is safer to assume that, in the mind of
;
the genealogist, they stand for real individuals, from whom the different
nations were believed to be descended.
The geographical horizon of the Table is very restricted

but is considerably wider in P
than in J.J J's survey ex-
tends from the Hittites and Phoenicians in the N to Egypt
and southern Arabia in the S on the E he knows Baby-
;
lonia and Assyria and perhaps the Kassi, and on the W

the Libyans and the south coast of Asia Minor.§ P includes
in addition Asia Minor, Armenia, and Media on the N and
NE, Elam on the E, Nubia in the S, and the whole
* "An exactly parallel instance ... is afforded by the ancient

Greeks. The general name of the Greeks was Hellenes ; the principal
subdivisions were the Dorians, the .ôlians, the lonians, and the
Achaeans and accordingly the Greeks traced their descent from a
;
supposed eponymous ancestor Hellen, who had three sons, Dorus and
Aeolus, the supposed ancestors of the Dorians and Cohans, and
Xuthus, from whose two sons, Ion and Achaeus, the lonians and
Achaeans were respectively supposed to be descended" (Dri. 112).
t See Guthe, GI, i ff.
X Judging, that is, from the extracts of J that are preserved.
§ Kaphtorim (v.^^) according to others the island of Crete.
:
CH. X. 191
Mediterranean coast on the W. The world outside these

limits is ignored, for the simple reason that the writers
were not aware of its existence. But even within the area
thus circumscribed there are remarkable omissions, some
of which defy reasonable explanation.
The nearer neighbours and kinsmen of Israel (Moabites, Ishmaelites,

Edomites, etc.) are naturally reserved for the times when they broke
off from the parent stem. It would appear, further, that as a rule
only contemporary peoples are included in the lists extinct races and
;
nationalities like the Rephaim, Zuzim, etc., and possibly the Amalekites,
being- deliberately passed over ; while, of course, peoples that had not
yet played any important part in history are ignored. None of these
considerations, however, accounts for the apparent omission of the
—
Babylonians in P, a fact which has perhaps never been thoroughly
explained (see p. 205).
From what has just been said it ought to be possible to form some
conclusion as to the age in which the lists were drawn up. For P
the terminus a quo is the 8th cent., when the Cimmerian and Scythian
hordes (^•) first make their appearance south of the Caucasus the :
absence of the Minaeans among the Arabian peoples, if it has any

significance, would point to the same period (see p. 203). A lower
limit may with less certainty be found in the circumstance that the
names D"!^ and 3"]j;;., '^tj^ (Persians and Arabs, first mentioned in Jer.
and Ezk.) do not occur. It would follow that the Priestly List is
pre-exilic, and represents, not the viewpoint of the PC (5th cent.), but
one perhaps two centuries earlier (so Gu.). Hommel's opinion
{Aufs, u. Abh. 314 flf.), that the Table contains the earliest ethnological
Ideas of the Hebrews fresh from Arabia, and that its "Grundstock"
goes back to Mosaic times and even the 3rd millennium B.C., is reached
by arbitrary excisions and alterations of the names, and by unwarranted
inferences from those which are left* (see Je. ATLO'^, 252). The —
lists of J, on the other hand, yield no definite indications of date.
The S Arabian tribes (25-30) might have been known as early as the
—
age of Solomon (Brown, EB, ii. 1699), they might even have been
* It has often been pointed out that there is a remarkable agreement

between the geographical horizon of P in Gn. 10 and that of Jer.
and Ezk. Of the 34 names of nations in P's Table, 22 occur in
Ezk. and 14 in the book of Jer. it has to be remembered, however,
;
that a large part of the book of Jer. is later than that prophet. Ezk.
has perhaps 6 names which might have been expected in P if they
had been known (ai;;, an?'?, yip, yw, Dip, nip?), and Jer. (book) has 5
([']?"jy:. D'''?'3. D'39, 1^9, 'ii9). The statistics certainly do not bear out the
assertion that P compiled his list from these two books between 538
and 526 B.C. (see Di. p. 166) they rather suggest that while the general
;
outlook was similar, the knowledge of the outer world was in some
directions more precise in the time of Ezk. than in the Table.
known earlier,— but that does not us when they were systematically
tell
tabulated. The of Canaanites {^^-^^) is assigned by

(interpolated) list
Jeremias {I.e. 256) to the age of Tiglath-pileser ill. ; but since a con-
siderable percentage of the names occurs in the Tel-Amarna letters
(v.-i.), the grounds of that determination are not apparent. With
regard to the section on Nimrod (^^^), all that can fairly be said is
that it is probably later than the Kassite conquest of Babylonia how :
.nuch later, we cannot tell. On the attempt to deduce a date from the
description of the Assyrian cities, see p. 212.— There are, besides, two
s*pecial sources of error which import an element of uncertainty into
all these investigations, (a) Since only two names (n??' and nh'\n) are
really duplicated in P and J,* we may suppose that the redactor has
as a general practice omitted names from one source which he gives
in the other and we cannot be quite sure whether the omission has
;
been made in P or in J. (b) According to Jewish tradition, the total

number of names is 70 and again the suspicion arises that names
;
may have been added or deleted so as to bring out that result, f
The threefold division of mankind is a feature common

to P and J, and to both recensions of J if there were two
(above, p. 188 f.). It is probable, also, though not certain,
that each of the Tables placed the groups in the reverse
order of birth : Japheth — Ham — Shem ; or Canaan —^Japheth
— Shem (see v.^^). The basis of the classification may not
have been ethnological in any sense it may have been ;
originally suggested by the tradition that Noah had just

three sons, in accordance with a frequently observed
tendency to close a genealogy with three names (4^^^- 5*^
ii26 etc.). Still, the classification must follow some

ethnographic principle, and we have to consider what that
principle is. The more obvious distinctions of colour,
language, and race are easily seen to be inapplicable.
ancient Egyptian division of foreigners into Negroes (black),

The
Asiatics (light brown),and Libyans (white) is as much geographical
as chromatic (Erman, LAE, 32); but in any case the survey of Gn. 10
excludes the true negroes, and differences of colour amongst the
peoples included could not have been sufficiently marked to form a
basis of classification. It is certainly noteworthy that the Egyptian
monuments represent the Egyptians, Ko§, Punt, and Phoenicians
* nisy'N, mi^, DHvp and \m do not count, because they are so introduced
that the two documents supplement one another.
t For the official enumeration see Zunz, Gd V"^, 207 Steinschneider, ;
ZDMG, iv. 150 f. ; Krauss, ZATW, 1899, 6 (1900, 38 ffi) ; cf. PoznaAski,
ib. 1904, 302.
CH. X 193
(P*s Hamites) as dark brown (Di. 167); but the characteristic was
not shared by the offshoots of Kush in Arabia and a colour line ;
between Shem and Japheth could never have been drawn. The test of —
language also breaks down. The perception of linguistic affinities on
a wide scale is a modern scientific attainment, beyond the apprehen-
sion of an antique people, to whom as a rule all foreign tongues were

alike 'barbarous.' So we find that the most of P's Hamites (the
Canaanites and nearly all the Kushites) are Semitic-speaking- peoples,
while the language of Elam among the sons of Shem belongs to an
entirely different family and Greek was certainly not spoken in the
;
regions assigned to sons of Javan. —

Of race, except in so far as it is
evidenced by language, modern science knows very little and attempts ;
have been made to show that where the linguistic criterion fails the
Table follows authentic ethnological traditions e.g. that the Canaanites
:
came from Red Sea coast and were really related

the to the Cushites ;
or that Babylonia was actually colonised from central Africa, etc. But
none of these speculations can be substantiated and the theory that
;
is the main principle of the Table has to be abandoned.

true racial affinity
Thus, while most of the Japhetic peoples are Indo-European, and
nearly all the Shemitic are Semites in the modern sense, the corre-
spondence is no closer than follows necessarily from the geographic
arrangement to be described presently. The Hamitic group, on the
other hand, is and ethnological unity.
destitute alike of linguistic ^
Similarly, when
assigns Phoenicians and Hittites (perhaps also
J
Egyptians) to one ethnic group, it is plain that he is not guided by a
sound ethnological tradition. His Shemites are, indeed, all of Semitic
speech what his Japhetic peoples may have been we cannot conjecture
;
(see p. 188).
So far as P is concerned, the main principle is un-

doubtedly geographical: Japheth representing the North and
West, Ham the South, and Shem the East. Canaan is the
solitary exception, which proves the rule (see p. 201 f.). The
same law appears (so far ascan be ascertained) to govern
the distribution of the subordinate groups ; although too
many of the names are uncertain to make this absolutely
clear. There is very little ground
for the statement that
the geographical idea disturbed here and there by con-
is
siderations of a historical or political order.
The exact is, of course, more or

delimitation of the three regions
less arbitrary : Media might have been reckoned to the Eastern group,
or Elam to the Southern but the actual arrangement is just as natural,
;
and there is no need to postulate the influence of

ethnology in the one
case or of political relations in the other. Lfid would be a glaring
exception if the Lydians of Asia Minor were meant, but that is probably
not the case (p. 206). The Mediterranean coasts and islands are ap-
13
propriately enough assigned to Javan, the most westerly of the sons of

Japheth. It can only be the assumption that Shem represents a middle
zone between N and S that makes the position of Kittim appear anoma-
lous to Di. Even if the island of Cyprus be meant (which, however, is
doubtful p. 199), it must, on the view here taken, be assigned to Japheth.
;
It is true that in J traces of politico-historical grouping do appear

(iiB'N and S53 in
^'^"^
; Dnjns?, wr^l^\^ in "^). — As to the order within the
principal groups (of P), it is impossible to lay down any strict rule. Jen.
{ZA, holds that it always proceeds from the remoter to the
X. 326)
nearer nations but though that may be true in the main, it cannot be
;
rigorously carried through, nor can it be safely used as an argument

for or against a particular identification.
The defects of the Table, from the standpoint of modern

ethnology, are now sufficiently apparent. As a scientific
account of the origin of the races of mankind, it is dis-
qualified by
assumption that nations are formed through
its
the expansion and genealogical division of families and ;
still more by the erroneous idea that the historic peoples of
the old world were fixed within three or at most four

generations from the common ancestor of the race. History
shows that nationalities are for the most part political units,
formed by the dissolution and re-combination of older peoples
and tribes and it is known that the great nations of
;
antiquity were preceded by a long succession of social

aggregates, whose very names have perished. Whether a
single family has ever, under any circumstances, increased
until it became a tribe and then a nation, is an abstract
question which it is idle to discuss it is enough that the :
nations here enumerated did not arise in that way, but

through a process analogous to that by which the English
nation was welded together out of the heterogeneous ele-
ments of which it is known to be composed. As a historical —
document, on the other hand, the chapter is of the highest
importance first, as the most systematic record of the
:
political geography of the Hebrews at different stages of

their history and second, as expressing the profound con-
;
sciousness of the unity of mankind, and the religious

primacy of Israel, by which the OT writers were animated.
Its insertion at this point, where it forms the transition from
primitive tradition to the history of the chosen people, has

'
X. lA 195
a significance, as well as a literary propriety, which cannot

be mistaken (Di. 164; Gu. 77; Dri. 114).
The Table is repeated in i Ch. i*"^^ with various omissions and
textual variations. The list is still further abridged in CEr of i Chr.,
which omits ^^'^^ and all names after Arpachshad in ^. — On the ex-
tensive literature on the chapter, see especially the commentaries of
Tu. (159 f.) and Di. (170 f.). See also the map at the end oi ATLO.
The Table of P,
la. Superscription. — Shem, Ham, and YephetK\ cf.
532 (P), 9I8

(J).
On the original sense of the names only vague conjectures can be

reported, db' is supposed by some to be the Heb. word for *name,'
applied by the Israelites to themselves in the first instance as DK' 'i5 =
*
men of name or distinction
'
*
—
the titled or noble race (cf. hvotJLO.(XTb%) :
'
"perhaps nothing more than the ruling caste in opposition to the

aborigines." So We. {Comp."^ 14), who compares the name 'Aryan,'
and contrasts B' ''â '33 (Jb. 30^) cf. Bu. Urg. 328 f. al. Gu. (73)
; ;
mentions a speculation of Jen. that DK' is the Babylonian Sumu, in the

sense of 'eldest son,' who perpetuates the father's name.
ori must, at a certain stage of tradition, have supplanted the earlier
jyj? as the name of Noah's third son (p. 182). The change is easily
explicable from the extension of geographical knowledge, which made
it impossible any longer to regard the father of the Canaanites as the
ancestor of one-third of the human race but the origin of the name ;
has still to be accounted for. As a Heb. word it might mean hot *
(Jos. 9^, Jb. 37^'') hence it has been taken to denote the hot lands of
:
the south (Lepsius, al. ; cf. Juh. viii. 30: "the land of Ham is hot").
Again, since in some late Pss. (78^^ 105^^- ^' 106^^) on is a poetic desig-
nation of Egypt, it has been plausibly connected with the native keme
or chemi= h\a.ck,' with reference to the black soil of the Nile valley
'
(Bochart, Ebers, Bu. 323 ff.).* A less probable theory is that of Glaser,
cited by Hommel {AHT, 48), who identifies it with Eg. 'amu^ a collective
name for the neighbouring Semitic nomads, derived by Miiller {AE^
123 ff.) from their distinctive primitive weapon, the boomerang.
ns; is connected in 9^ with ^ nn£3, and no better etymology has been
proposed. Che. {EB, ii. 2330) compares the theophorous personal name
Yapti-Addu in TA Tab., and thinks it a modification of *?N-nJ?9% *God
opens.' But the form nnE3 {pitA) with the probable sense of 'open' also
occurs in the Tab. {KIB, v. 290 [last line]). The derivation from J ns'
(beautiful), favoured by Bu. (358 ff.), in allusion to the beauty of the
Phoenician cities, is very improbable. The resemblance to the Greek
lapetos was pointed out by Buttmann, and is undoubtedly striking.
'IdircTos was the father of Prometheus, and therefore (through Deu-
* Cf. the rare word Din, '

black,' ô^^'
196 TABLE OF PEOPLES (p)
kalion) of post-diluvian mankind. The identification is approved by

Weizsacker (Roscher's Lex. ii. 55ff.)> who holds that 'IdTreros, having
no Greek etymology, may be borrowed from the Semites (cf. Lenorm.
ii. 173-193). See, further, Mey. INS, 221.
A curiously complicated astro-mythical solution is advanced by Wi.
xnMVAG, vi. 170 ff.
2-5. The Japhetic or Northern Peoples fourteen in :
number, chiefly concentrated in Asia Minor and Armenia,

but extending on either side to the Caspian and the shores
of the Atlantic. It will be seen that though the enumera-
tion is not ethnological in principle, yet most q>^ the peoples

named do belong to the same great Indo-Germanic family.
J apheth.
\
1 \ \ \ \ i I
1. Gomer. 5. Magog. 6. Madai. 7. Javan. 12. Tubal. 13. Meshech. 14. Tiras.
I I
I
I I
2. Ashkenaz. 3. Riphath. 4. Togarmah.
8. Elishah. g. Tarshish. 10. Kittim. 11. Rodanim.
(i) IDS (CEt Faynep) : named along" with Togarmah as a confederate of

Gog in Ezk. 38*', is identified with the Galatians by Jos., but is really the
Gamir oi the Ass. inscr., the Cimmerians of the Greeks. The earliest
reference to the Ki/x/j-^pLoi {Od. xi. 13 ff.) reveals them as a northern
people, dwelling on the shores of the Northern Sea. Their irruption

into Asia Minor, by way of the Caucasus, is circumstantially narrated
by Herodotus (i. 15, 103, iv. 11 f.), whose account is in its main features
confirmed by the Ass. monuments. There the Gitnirrai first appear
towards the end of the reign of Sargon, attacking the old kingdom of
Urartu (see Johns, PSBA, xvii. 223 f., 226). Thence they seem to have
moved westwards into Asia Minor, where (in the reign of Sennacherib)
they overthrew the Phrygian Empire, and later (under Asshur-bani-pal,
c. 657) the Lydian Empire of Gyges {KIB, ii. 173-7). This last effort
seems to have exhausted their strength, and soon afterwards they
vanish from history.* A trace of their shortlived ascendancy remained
in Gamir, the Armenian name for Cappadocia f but the probability is ;
that the land was named after the people, and not vice versd ;and it is
not safe to assume that by npii P meant Cappadocia. It is more likely
that the name is primarily ethnic, and denotes the common stock of
which the three following peoples were branches.
* Cf. Wi. AOF, i. 484-496; KAT^, 76 f, loi flf.

; Je. ATLO^, 253.
t Cf. Eus. Chron. Arm. (ed. Aucher) i. p. 95=* {Gtmmert = Ca.ppa.-
docians), and ii. p. 12 {T6fxep, ^| o5 Ka7r7rd5o*c€s).
—
X. 2, 3 197
(2) m-û Jer. 51^7, after Ararat and Minni.*

('Ao-xai/af) : It has been
usual (Bochart, connect the name with the Ascania of //. ii. 863,
al.) to
xiii. 793 and to suppose this was a region of Phrygia and Bithynia
;
indicated by a river, two lakes, and other localities bearing the old name.f
Recent Assyriologists, however, find in it the ASgT4saX of the monn.,
a branch of the Indo-Germanic invaders who settled in the vicinity of
lake Urumia, and are probably identical with the Scythians of Herod, i.
103, 106. Since they are first mentioned by Esarhaddon, they might
readily appear to a Heb. writer to be a younger people than the Cim-
merians. See Wi. II. cc. ATLO% 259 f. ;
(3) ro'1 {"Pi<f>ad, 'EpKpad: but i Ch. i^ ngn) otherwise unknown. :
According to Josephus, it denotes the Paphlagonians. Bochart and

Lagarde {Ges. Abh. 255) put it further west, near the Bosphorus, on the
ground of a remote resemblance in name to the river 'P?;/3a^ and the
district PTy/Savr/a.
' Che. {EB, 41 14) favours the transposition of Halevy
(m'£3), and compares Bit Burutai^ mentioned by Sargon along with the
Mu§ki and Tabali (Schr. KGF, 176).

(4) nD-iJh (Bepyaûa, eop7a/Aa) = nDn:in n'3, Ezk. 38^ 27^^: in the latter
passage as a region exporting horses and mules. Jos. identifies with
the Phrygians.The name is traditionally associated with Armenia,
Thorgom being regarded as the mythical ancestor of the Armenians ;
but that legend probably derived from ffi of this passage (Lag.
is
Ges. Abh. 255 ff. Symm. i. 105). The suggested Assyriological equi-
;
valent Til-Garimmu (Del. Par. 246; ATLG^., 260; al.), a city on the
frontier of the Tabali mentioned by Sargon and Sennacherib, is not
convincing even though the Til- should be a fictitious Ass. etymology
;
(Lenorm. Orig.^ ii. 410).

(5) j'i:d (Ma7W7) Ezk. 38^ 396. The generally accepted identifica-
:
tion with the Scythians dates from Jos. and Jer. but perhaps reflects ,
only a vague impression that the name is a comprehensive designation

of the barbarous races of the north, somewhat like the Umman-manda
of the Assyrians. In one of the Tel-Amarna letters {KIB, v. 5), a land
Ga-ga is alluded to in a similar manner. But how the author differenti-
ated Magog from the Cimmerians and Medes, etc., does not appear.
The name JUD is altogether obscure. That it is derived from Jia = Gyges,
king of Lydia (Mey. GA^, i. p. 558), is most improbable and the ;
suggestion that it is a corruption of Ass. Mdt Gog {Mdt Gagaia),% must

also be received with some caution.
(6) '1? (MaSai) : the common Heb. name for Media and the Medes ;
2 Ki. 176 i8^ Is. 13" 2i2, Jer. 252= 51"- 28, Est. i^-i^-isf. ,02^ £)„. 82° 9I [iji]
* Ass. Mannai, between lakes Van and Urumia, mentioned along

with A§guza in KIB, ii. 129, 147.
t Lag. {Ges. Abh. 254) instances Ashken as an Armenian proper
name and the inscription ixt]v "AaK-rjuos on Grasco-Phrygian coins.
;
X Whether the Heb. word is a clerical error for iiSfN (Wi. Jer.), or
the Ass. a modification of ASgunsa, the Assyriologists may decide (see
Schmidt, EB, iv. 4330 f.).
§ Del. Par. 246 f. Streck, ZA, 321 ;Sayce, IICAP, 125. ;
(Ass. Madai). The formation of the Median Empire must have taken
place about the middle of the 7th cent., but the existence of the people in
their later seats (E of the Zagros mountains and S of the Caspian Sea)
appears to be traceable in the monuments back to the 9th cent. They
are thus the earliest branch of the Aryan family to make their mark
in Asiatic history. See Mey. GA^, i. § 4221?. ; KAT^, 100 ff. ; ATLO^,
254.
(7) P-r
the Greek 'IdFtav-oves, and denotes primarily the
('Iwyai') is
Greek settlements Asia Minor, which were mainly Ionian Ezk. 27^^
in :
Is. 66^^. After Alexander the Great it was extended to the Hellenes
generally: Jl. 4^ Zech. 9^^, Dn. 8^^ 10^ ii^. In Ass. Yamanai is said
to be used but once (by Sargon, KIB, ii. 43) but the Persian Yauna ;
occurs, with the same double reference, from the time of Darius (cf.
iEsch. Pers. 176, 562). Whether the word here includes the European
Greeks cannot be positively determined.* The 'sons* of Javan are —
(v.^) to be sought along the Mediterranean, and probably at spots
known to the Heb. as commercial colonies of the Phoenicians (on which
see Mey. EB, 3736 f.). Very few of them, however, can be confidently
identified.
(8) h^'Sn ('BXto-a, 'EXt<r(ra) is mentioned only in Ezk. 27' ('k '^k) as a
place supplying Tyre with purple. The older verbal identifications
with the Ai'oXeij (Jos. Jer. ; so De.), "EXXcts {E^), 'HXt's, etc., are value-
less and modern opinion is greatly divided. Some favour Carthage,
;
because of Elissa, the name of the legendary foundress of the city

(Sta. Wi. Je. al.); others (Di. al.) southern Italy with Sicily.t The
most attractive solution is that first proposed by Conder {PEFS, 1892,
45 ; cf. 1904, 170), and widely accepted, that the Alasia of the TA
Tablets is meant (see KIBy v. 80-92). This is now generally recognised

as the name of Cyprus, of which the Tyrian purple was a product % see :
below on Jensen now {KIB, vi. i, 507) places nB"'?j< beyond the
d'Fid.
Pillars of Hercules on the African coast, and connects it with the

Elysium of the Greeks.
(9) i?'?'in (Gapcrts) is identified (since Bochart) with TapTrjirads
(Tartesos), the Phoenician mining and trading station in the S of Spain § ;
and no other theory is nearly so plausible. The OT Tarshish was rich

in minerals (Jer. 10^, Ezk. 27'^), was a Tyrian colony (Is. 23^- ^•^*'), and
a remote coast-land reached by sea (Is. 66^^ Jn. i^ ^^, Ps. 72^*^); and
to distinguish the Tarshish of these pass, from that of Gn. 10 (De.
Jast. al.), or to consider the latter a doublet of DTn (Che. Mii.), are but
counsels of despair. The chief rival theory is Tarsus in Cilicia (Jos.
* Against the theory of a second ]v in Arabia (which in any case

would not affect the interpretation of this pass.), see Sta. Akad.
Red. 125-142. Cf., further, ATLO^, 255.
t Cf. C° on Ezk. nPiDD and Eus. Chr. Arm, ii. p. 13
27'' N'Va'K ; :
'EXio-o-d, i^ ol SiKeXo/ + et Athenienses [Arm.].
X See Muller, ZA, x. 257 ff. OLz. iii. 288 ff. Jen. ZA, 379 f. Jast.
; ; ;
DB, V.80 b.
§ Her. i. 163, iv. 152 ; Strabo, iii. 151 ; Plin. HN^ iii. 7, iv.
120, etc.
:
X. 2,4 199
Jer. al.); but this in Semitic is nn {Tarzi). Cf. Wi. AOF, i. 445 f.;
Miiller, OLz. iii. 291.
(10) D'Pi? Kmoi)] cf. Jer. 2^0, Ezk. 27«, Is. 23'- ^^^ Dn. iiô,
{K-qTLoi,
1 Mac. Nu. 24^. Ag-ainst the prevalent view that it denotes

i^ 8^,
primarily the island of Cyprus, so called from its chief city Kiriov
(Larnaka), Wi. {AOF, ii. 422^; cf. KAT^, 128) argues that neither the
island nor its capital * is so named in any ancient document, and that
the older biblical references demand a site further W. The application
to the Macedonians (i Mac.) he describes as one of those false identifica-
tions common in the Egypt of the Ptolemaic period. His argument is
endorsed by Miiller {OLz. iii. 288) and Je. {ATLO^j 261) they suggest :
S Italy, mainly on the authority of Dn. 11^". The question is obviously

bound up with the identity of nt^'SN Alalia {v.s.). —
(11) DU-iM or D'inn {asx(& ['PoSioi] and i Ch. i*^)] a name omitted by
Jos. If (& be right, the Rhodians are doubtless meant (cf. //. ii. 654 f. )
the sing, is perhaps disguised in the corrupt pT of Ezk. 27^^^ (cf. (&).
The MT has been explained of the Dardanians (CJ, De. al.), "properly
a people of Asia Minor, not far from the Lycians " (Che. EB, 1 123). Wi.
{I.e.) proposes nTn, the Dorians and Miiller D'J3(i)i, Eg-. Da-nd-na =
;
TA, Da-nu-na {KIB, v. 277), on the coast of Asia Minor. W

(12) SjPi (BoiSeX)] and
(13) ^2*0 (Mo<rox)] are mentioned together in Ezk. 27^^ (as exporting
slaves and copper), 32^^ (a warlike people of antiquity), 38^'- 39^ (in the
army of Gog), Is. 66^^ (ffi) ; IK'D alone in Ps. 120^ Jos. arbitrarily
identifies them with the Iberians and Cappadocians respectively but ;
since Bochart no one has questioned their identity with the T^âprjvol
and Mdtrxot, first mentioned in Her. iii. 94 as belonging- to the 19th
satrapy of Darius, and again (vii. 78) as furnishing- a conting-ent to the
host of Xerxes (cf. Strabo, XI. ii. 14, 16). Equally obvious is their
identity with the Tahali and Muski of the Ass. Monn. where the latter ,
appear as early as Tiglath-pileser i. {c. iioo), and the former under

—
Shalmaneser ii. (c. 838), both as formidable military states. In Sarg-on's
inscrs. they appear together f and during this whole period their
;
territory evidently extended much further S and than in Grseco- W

Roman times. These stubborn little nationalities, which so tenaciously
maintained their identity, are regarded by Wi. and Je. as remnants of
the old Hittite population which were gradually driven (probably by
the Cimmerian invasion) to the mountainous district SE of the Black
Sea.
(14) D"j'JPi (9et/)as)] not mentioned elsewhere, was almost unanimously
taken by the ancients (Jos. ^J, Jer. etc. ; and so Boch. al.) to be
the Thracians ( GpS/c-es) but the superficial resemblance vanishes when
;
the nominative ending- s is removed. Tu. was the first to sugg-est the
Tvp<r-r]VLol, a race of Pelasgian pirates, who left many traces of their
ancient prowess in the islands and coasts of the ^gean, and who were
* The city, however, is called 'n3 in Phoen. inscrs. and coins from
the 4th cent. B.C. downwards see Cooke, NSI, pp. 56, 66?, 78, 352.
;
t See /iriB, i. 18 f., 64 f., 142 f., ii. 40 f., 56 f. and Del. Par. 250 f.
;
doubtless identical with the E-frus-ca.ns of Italy.* This brilliant con-

jecture has since been confirmed by the discovery of the name Turusa
amongst the seafaring peoples who invaded Egypt in the reigti of
Merneptah (Mey. GA^, i. § 260; W. M. MiiUer, AE, 356 flF.)-
6, 7, 20. The Hamitic or Southern Group in Africa :
and S Arabia, but including the Canaanites of Palestine.
Ham.
I. Kush. 2. Mizraim. 3. Put. 4. Canaan.
5. Seba, 6. Havilah. 7. Sabtah. 8. Ra'mah. 9. Sabtekah.
I 1
10. Sheba. 11. Dedan.
(i) B'ls {(& Xovj, but elsewhere AZ^ô7r-es, -la)] the land and people
S of Egypt (Nubia),— the Ethiopians of the Greeks, the K6^ of the Eg.
monuments:! cf. Is. i8^ Jer. 13^3, Ezk. 29^*', Zeph. 3^° etc. Ass. Kusu
occurs repeatedly in the same sense on inscrs. of Esarhaddon and
Asshurbanipal and only four passages of Esarhaddon are claimed by
;
Wi. for the hypothesis of a south Arabian Kusu {KA 7^, 144). There is
no reason to doubt that in this v. the African Kush is meant. That the
5. The subscription to the first division of the Table is not quite in

order. We miss the formula ns' 'Ji n'?t< (cf. w.^* which is here
''),
necessary to the sense, and must be inserted, not (with We.) at the
beginning of the v., but immediately before Dn^nK3. The clause
—
D'un n'?ND is then seen to belong to v.^ and to mean that the Mediter-
ranean coasts were peopled from the four centres just named as occupied
by sons of Javan. Although these places were probably all at one
time Phoenician colonies, it is not to be inferred that the writer confused
the lonians with Phoenicians. He may be thinking of the native popula-
tion of regions known to Israel through the Phoenicians, or of the
Mycenean Greeks, whose colonising enterprise is now believed to be
of earher date than the Phoenician (Mey. EB, 3736 f.). msj] construed —
like ns33 in 9^^ (J) ct. lo^^
; —
D'un "n] only again Zeph. 2". Should we
read D'n "n (Is. 11^^ 24^^ Est. 10^)? 'k (for 'ix, perhaps from fj 'awaP'y
"betake oneself") seems to be a seafarer's word denoting the place
one makes for (for shelter, etc.); hence both ** coast" and "island"
(the latter also in Phoen.). In Heb. the pi. came to be used of distant
lands in general (Is. 41^* ^ 42* 51'' etc., Jer. 31^° etc.)
* Thuc. iv. 109 Her. i. 57, 94

; ; Strabo, V. ii. 2, iii. 5 : other reff. in
Tu. ad loc.
t See Steindorff, BA^ i. 593 f.
'
X. 5, 6 20I
* sons' of Kush include Arabian peoples is quite naturally explained by

the assumption that the writer believed these Arabs to be of African
descent. As a matter of fact, intercourse, involving- intermixture of
blood, has at all times been common between the two shores of the
Red Sea and indeed the opinion that Africa was the original cradle of
;
the Semites has still a measure of scientific support (see Barton, OS^,
6fF., 24). —
See, further, on v.^ (p. 207 f).
Dn^p (Mea-paiv)] the Heb. form of the common Semitic name of
(2)
Egypt (TA, Missari, Misri, Masri, Mizirri; Ass. [from 8th and 7th
cent] Mtifur I
Bah.Mtsir; Syr. >> > Vn ; Ar. Misr). Etymology and
meaning are uncertain Hommel's suggestion {Gesch. 530 cf Wi. AOF^

: ;
i.25) that it is an Ass. appellative = frontier,' is little probable. The'
dual form of Heb. is usually explained by the constant distinction in

the native inscrs. between Upper and Lower Egypt, though ansD is
found in connexions (Is. 11", Jer. 44^^) which limit it to Lower Eg. and ;
many scholars now deny a real dual (Mey.

that the termination is
GA^ i. § 42, An. Jen. ZDMG, xlviii. 439). On the vexed question of a
; —
N Arabian Musri, it is unnecessary to enter here. There may be
passages of OT where that view is plausible, but this is not one of
them and the idea of a wholesale confusion between Eg. and Arabia
;
on the part of OT writers is a nightmare which it is high time to be

quit of.
(3) BIS {ôv5, mentioned 6 times (incl. (& of
but elsewhere At/3u6s)]
Is. 66^^) in OT, as a warlike people
furnishing auxiliaries to Egypt
(Nah. 39, Jer. 46^, Ezk. ô^) or Tyre (Ezk. 27IO) or the host of Gog(385),
and frequently associated with iîs and n^"?. The prevalent view has been
that the Lybians, on the coast of Africa Nof Egypt, are meant {(&, W
Jos. although Nah. 3^ and probably Ezk. 30^ ((K) show that the
al.),
two peoples were distinguished. Another identification, first proposed

by Ebers, has recently been strongly advocated viz. with the Pwnt of :
Eg. monuments, comprising the whole African coast of the Red Sea
'
(W. M. Miiller, AE, ii4ff., andZ>^, iv. 176 f. Je. 263 f.). The only serious
;
objection to this theory is the order in which the name occurs, which
suggests a place further north than Egypt (Jen. ZA, x. 325 ff.).
(4) \m (Xamaj/)] the eponym

of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of
Palestine, is primarily a geographical designation. The etymology is
doubtful ; lowland has still the best claim to acceptance
but the sense ' '
(see, however, Moore, PAOS, 1890, Ixviiff.). In Eg. monuments the

name, in the form pa-Ka-n- -na {pa is the art.), is applied to the strip
of coast from Phoenicia to the neighbourhood of Gaza but the ethno- ;
graphic derivative extends to the inhabitants of all Western Syria

(Miiller, AE, 205 ff.). Similarly in TA Tablets Kinahhi, Kina^^na, etc.,
stand for Palestine proper {KAT^, i8i), or (according to Jast. EB^ 641)
—
the northern part of the seacoast. The fact that Canaan, in spite of its
geographical situation and the close affinity of its language with Heb.,
is reckoned to the Hamites is not to be explained by the tradition (Her. i.
I, vii. 89, etc.) that the Phoenicians came originally from the Red Sea;
for that probably implies no more than that they were connected with
:'
the Babylonians {'EpvOpi] GdXao-tra = the Persian Gulf). Neither is it

altog-ether natural to suppose that Canaan is thus placed because it
had for a long time been a political dependency of Eg-. in that case, as :
Di. observes, we should have expected Canaan to figure as a son of

Mizraim. The belief that Canaan and Israel belonged to entirely
different branches of the human family is rooted in the circumstances
that gave rise to the blessing and curse of Noah in ch. 9. When, with
the extension of geographical knowledge, it became necessary to
assign the Canaanites to a larger group (p. 187 above), it was inevitable
that they should find their place as remote from the Hebrews as
possible.
Of the descendants of Kush (v.') a large proportion all, indeed, that —
—
can be safely identified are found in Arabia. Whether this means
that Kushites had crossed the Red Sea, or that Arabia and Africa were
supposed to be a continuous continent, in which the Red Sea formed an
inland lake (jK'AT^, 137, 144), it is perhaps impossible to decide.
*
(5) K^p (SttjSa)] Is. 43^ 45", Ps. 72^0 ; usually taken to be Meroe
(between Berber and Khartoum). The tall stature attributed to the
people in Is. 45'^ (but cf. iS^- '') is in favour of this view but it has ;
nothing else to recommend it. Di. al. prefer the Saba referred to by
Strabo (xvi. iv. 8, 10; cf. Ptolemy, iv. 7. 7f.) on the African side of
the Red Sea (S of Suakim). Je. (ATLO^, 265) considers the word as
the more correct variant to K3» (see below).
(6) nriq (EL'[e]tXa[T])] often (since Bochart) explained as * sand-land
(fr. Vin)
; named in v.^^ (J) as a Joktanite people, and in 25^^ (also J) as
the eastern limit of the Ishmaelite Arabs. It seems impossible to
harmonise these indications. The last is probably the most ancient,
and points to a district in N Arabia, not too far to the E. We may
conjecture that the name is derived from the large tract of loose red
sand (nefud) which stretches N of Teima and S of el-6of. This is
precisely where we should look for the XavXoraloL whom Eratosthenes
(Strabo, xvi. iv. 2) mentions (next to the Nabateans) as the second of
three tribes on the route from Egypt to Babylon and Pliny (vi. 157) ;
gives Domata (= Dfimah = el-66f see p. 353) as a town of the Avalitce.

:
The name might easily be extended to other sandy regions of Arabia,

(perhaps especially to the great sand desert in the southern interior)
of some more southerly district it must be used both here and v.'^
(see Mey. INS, 325 f.). To distinguish further the Cushite from the
Joktanite 'n, and to identify the former with the 'AâXtrai, etc., on the
African coast near Bab-el-mandeb, is quite unnecessary. On the other
hand, it is impossible to place either of these so far N as the head of the
Persian Gulf (Glaser) or the ENE part of the Syrian desert (Frd. Del.).
Nothing can be made of Gn. 2'^ and in i Sa. 15' (the only other occur-
;
rence) the text is probably corrupt.

(7) nj?3p (2a/3aâ)] not identified. Possibly Zdâra, Sabota, the
capital of Hadramaut (see on v.^**) (Strabo, XVi. iv. 2 Pliny, ffN, vi. 155,
;
—
xii. 63), though in Sabaean this is written nuB' (see Osiander, ZDMG^
* Jos. Ant. ii. 249. In i. 134 f. he seems to confuse K3D and K3».
X. 7 203
xix. 253; Homm. 5"^ Chrest. 119); or the 7!id<f>9a of Ptol. vi. 7. 30,
an inland town lying (according to Glaser, 252) W
of El-Katlf.
(8) nipyi ('Pe7/Aa (? and nSîn) in Ezk.
or 'Pe7XAta)] coupled with ttnty
27^ as a and gold. It is doubt-

tribe trading in spices, precious stones,
less the noyT {Ragmat) of a Minaean inscr.,* which speaks of an attack
by the hosts of Saba and Haul4n on a Minsean caravan en route between
Ma' in and Ra'mat. This again may be connected with the'Pa/iîai'rTai
of Strabo (xvi. iv. 24) N of Hadramaut. The identification with the
P^7[a]/ta TrdXti- (a seaport on the Persian Gulf) of Ptol. vi. 7. 14 (Boch.
al.; so Glaser) is difficult because of its remoteness from Sheba and
Dedan {v.i.), and also because this appears on the inscr. as R^mt
(Glaser, 252).
(9) K3n?p (2a/Sa/faâ)] unknown. XafivSaKr) in Carmaniaf (Ptol. vi.
8. 7f., 11) is unsuitable both geographically and phonetically. Je. sug-
gests that the word is a duplicate of nnap.
(10) Nîf' see No. 5 above) is

(2aâ)] (properly, as inscrs. show, n2D :
assigned v.^ to the Joktanites, and in 25^ to the Ketureans. It is

in
the OT name of the people known to the classical geographers as
Sabaeans, the founders of a great commercial state in Arabia, with SW
its metropolis at Marib (Mariaba), some 45 miles due E of San'a, the
present capital of Yemen (Strabo, xvi. iv. 2, 19; Pliny, HNy vi. 154 f.,
etc.). " They were the centre of an old S Arabian civilisation, regarding
the former existence of which the Sabaean inscriptions and architectural
monuments supply ample evidence " (Di. 182). Their history is still
obscure. The native inscrs. commence about 700 B.C. and, a little ;
earlier, Sabaean princes (not kings) appear on Ass. monuments as

ij:
paying tribute to Tiglath-pileser iv. (B.C. 738) and Sargon (B.C. 7i5).§
It would seem that about that time (probably with the help of the
Assyrians) they overthrew the older Minaean Empire, and established
themselves on its ruins. Unlike their precursors, however, they do
not appear to have consolidated their power in N Arabia, though their
inscrs. have been found as far N as el-Crof. To the Hebrews, Sheba
was a 'far country' (Jer. 6^*', Jl. 4^), famous for gold, frankincense, and
precious stones (i Ki. lo^^-, Is. 6o^ Jer. 6^'^, Ezk. 27^2, Ps. 72^^) j^ all .
these passages, as well as Ps. 72^°, Jb. 6^^, the reference to the southern
Sabaeans is clear. On the other hand, the association with Dedan (25^,
Ezk. 38^3 and here) favours a more northern locality in Jb. i^^ they ;
appear as Bedouin of the northern desert and the Ass. references ;
appear to imply a northerly situation. Since it is undesirable to assume

the existence of two separate peoples, it is tempting to suppose that the
pass, last quoted preserve the tradition of an earlier time, before the
* Halevy, 535, 2 (given in Homm. SA Chrest. 103) = Glaser, 1155:

translated by Miiller, ZDMG, xxx. 121 f., and Homm. AA, 322, AHT,
249 f.
t Boch.so Glaser, ii. 252 but see his virtual withdrawal on p. 404.
: ;
X important that neither in their own nor in the Ass. inscrs.

It is
are the earliest rulers spoken of as kings.
§ Cf. KIB, ii. 21, 55.
conquest of the Minaeans had led to a settlement in Yemen. V.^ (J),

however, presupposes the southern settlement.*
(ii)ji^ {Aadav, AeSav but elsewhere Aaidav, etc.)] a merchant tribe
-,
mentioned along with Sheba in 25^ (=1 Ch. i^^) and Ezk. 38'^; with
Tema (the modern Teima, c. 230 miles N of Medina) in Is. 21^^, Jer. 25^^,
and fir of Gn. 25^ and in Jer. 49^, Ezk. 25^^ as a neighbour of Edom.
;
All this points to a region in the N of Arabia and as the only other ;
—
reference (Ezk. 27^0) in 27^^ the text is corrupt is consistent with this, —
there is no need to postulate another Dedan on the Persian Gulf (Boch.
al.) or anywhere else. Glaser (397) very suitably locates the Dedanites
" in the neighbourhood of Khaibar, el-Ola, El-Hi^r, extending perhaps
—
beyond Teima," a region intersected by the trade-routes from all parts
of Arabia (see the map in EB, iv. 5160) and where the name is probably ;
perpetuated in the ruins of Daidan, of Teima (Di.). W

The name
occurs both in Minsean and Sabsean inscrs. (Glaser, 397 ff. Miiller, ;
ZDMG, XXX. 122), but not in the Greek or Roman geographers. The —
older tradition of J (25^) recognises a closer kinship of the Israelites
with Sheba and Dedan, by making them sons of Jokshan and descendants
of Abraham through Keturah {v. ad loc). (An intermediate stage seems
represented by lo-'^''^^ where S Arabia is assigned to the descendants of
'Eber). P follows the steps of 25^ by bracketing the two tribes as sons
of Ra'mah whether he knew them as comparatively recent offshoots of
:
the Kushite stock is not so certain.
22, 23, 31. The Shemitic or Eastern Group. With —

the doubtful exception of ^^
below) the nations here
(see
mentioned all lie on the E. of Palestine, and are probably
arranged in geographical order from SE to NW, till they
join hands with the Japhethites.
Shem.
Elam.
II 2. Asshur. 3.
I
Arpachshad. 4.
II
Lud. 5. Aram.
I
I I I I
6. Uz. 7. Hul. 8. Gether. 9. Mash.
(i) nVy (Aâ/t)] Ass. Elamtu,-\ the name of **the great plain E of
the lower Tigris and N
of the Persian Gulf, together with the mountain-
ous region enclosing it on the N and E " (Del. Par. 320), corresponding
to the later Elymais or Susiana. The district round Susa was in very
* See Mey. GA^,
i. § 403; Glaser, ii. 399 ff. Sprenger, ZDMG, ;
xliv. 501 Margoliouth, DB, i. 133, iv. 479 ff.

ff. ; Horn. AHTy 77 ff., ;
and in EBL, 728 ff. KAT^, 148 ff. ATLO"^, 265.

; ;
t Commonly explained as highland (Schr. Del. Hwb. etc.), but

'
'
according to Jen. {ZA, vi. 170^, xi. 351) = * front-land,' i.e. East land.' *
—
X. 1, 22 205
early times (after 3000 B.C.) inhabited by Semitic settlers ruled by
viceroys of the Babylonian kings about 2280 the Anzanite element (of
;
a different race and speaking- a different language) gained the upper

hand, and even established a suzerainty over Babylonia. From that
time onwards Elam was a powerful monarchy, playing an important
part in the politics of the Euphrates valley, till it was finally destroyed
by Assurbanipal.* The reason for including this non-Semitic race
among the sons of Shem is no doubt geographical or political. The
other OT reff. are Gn. 141- », Is. n^^ 212 22^, Jer. /i^<^^^', Ezk. 322*, 2^
Dn. 82.
(2) TiB'N] Assyria. See below on v.^^ (p. 211).
(3) ^?'?^l^* ('ApââS)] identified by Boch. with the 'A/5pa7raxms which

Ptol. (vi. I. 2) describes as the province of Assyria next to Armenia,
the mountainous region round the sources of the Upper Zab, between
lakes Van and Urumia, Kurdish Albdk.
still This name
called in
appears in Ass. as Arapha (Arbaâ, etc.),t and on Eg. monuments of
the i8th dynasty as 'Ararpaha (Miiller, AE, 278 f.). Geographically
nothing could be more suitable than this identification the difficulty is :
that the last syllable nE' is left unaccounted for. Jos. recognised in the
last three letters the name of the Chaldeans (n'^|), J and several attempts
have been made to explain the first element of the word in accordance
with this hint, (a) The best is perhaps that of Cheyne {EB, 3i8),§
resolving the word into two proper names "isnN or ^^^^{ (= Ass. Arbaha) :
—
and n|'3, the latter here introducing a second trio of sons of Shem.
On this view the Arpaksad of v.-* 1 1^'*^- must be an error (for iba ?) caused
by the textual corruption here, {b) An older conjecture, approved by Ges.
{Th.), Knobel, al., compares the snx with Ar. 'urfat {= boundary *
'),||
Eth. arfat ( = wall ') nc-^ '
would thus be the wall (or boundary)
;
f\-Mt.
of Kesed.' (c) Hommel {AHT, 212, 294-8) takes the middle syllable /a
to be the Eg>'ptian art., reading Ur-pa-Kesed = Ur of the Chaldees'
(n28),— an improbable suggestion, {d) Del. {Par. 255 f.) and Jen. {ZA,
XV. 256) interpret the word as arba-kisadu = [Land of the] four quarters '
(or shores),' after the analogy of a common designation of Babylonia in

royal titles. —
These theories are partly prompted by the observation
that otherwise Chaldea is passed over in the Table of P,— a surprising
omission, no doubt, but perhaps susceptible of other explanations. The
question is complicated by the mention of an Aramean Kesed in 22^2.
The difficulty of identifying that tribe with the Chaldeans in the S of
Babylonia is admitted by Dri. (p. 223) and if there was another Kesed ;
near Harran, the fact must be taken account of in speculating about

the meaning of Arpaksad.
* See the interesting historical sketch by Scheil, Textes elamites-

semitigues {igoo), pp. ix-xv [= vol. ii. of de Morgan, Delegation en Perse:
Memoires']. Cf. Sayce, ET^ xiii. 65.
t KIB, i. 177, 213, ii. 13, 89; cf. Del. Par. i24f.
t'Ap0a|d577S 5k robs vvv Xa\8aiov$ KaXov/m^povs Ap(paâ5aiovs (bvdfiaaev '
Apâs avTu)v : Ant. i. 144.

§ A different conjecture in EB, 2l^^ ; TBI, 178.
II
Note Tu.'s objections, p. 205.
'
n*?, (& Aou5)] usually understood of the Lydians (Jos. Boch.

(4) iiS (au.
al.), buthas never been satisfactorily explained how a people in the
it
extreme W
of Asia Minor comes to be numbered among the Shemites.
An African people, such as appears to be contemplated in v.^^, would
be equally out of place here. A sug-g-estion of Jen.'s deserves con-
sideration that ni"? is the Lubdu,
: —
a province lying "between the upper
Tigris and the Euphrates, N of Mt. Masius and its western extension,"
— mentioned in KIB, i. 4 (1. 9 fr. below, rd. Lu-up-di\ 1 77 (along with
Arrapha), 199. See Wi. AOF, ii. 47 Streck, ZA^ xiv. 168 Je. 276.
; ;
In the remaining refs. (Is. 66^^, Jer. 46^, Ezk. 2f^ 30"), the Lydians of
—
Asia Minor might be meant, in the last three as mercenaries in the
service of Eg. or Tyre.
(5) D"iN ('ApafJL, Apa/jiwp)] a collective designation of the Semitic
'
peoples speaking 'Aramaic' dialects,* so far as known to the Hebrews

(No. JSBy 276 fF.). The actual diffusion of that family of Semites was
wider than appears from OT, which uses the name only of the districts
to the NE of Palestine (Damascus especially) and Mesopotamia (Aram-
Naharaim, Paddan-Aram) these, however, were really the chief centres
:
of Aramaean culture and influence. In Ass. the Armaiu {Aramu, Artmu,

Arumu) are first named by Tiglath-pileser i. {c. iioo) as dwelling in
the steppes of Mesopotamia {KIBy i. 33) and Shalmaneser ii. (c. 857)
;
encountered them in the same region {ib. 165). But if Wi. be right
(KAT^, 28 f., 36), they are referred to under the name Ahldmi from a
much earlier date (TA Tab. Ramman-nirari I. [c. 1325] A§ur-ri§-
; ;
i§i \_c. 1 150]: see KIB, v. 387, i, 5, 13). Hence Wi. regards the second
half of the 2nd millennium B.C. as the period during which the Aramaean
nomads became settled and civilised peoples in Mesopotamia and Syria.
In I Ch. i^' the words dhn '331 (v.^) are omitted, the four following
names being treated as sons of Shem :
(6) py ('fis, Ou^)] is doubtless the same tribe which in

22^^ ('ftf, '0^) is
classed as the firstborn of Nahor therefore presumably somewhere NE

:
of Palestine in the direction of Harran. The conjectural identifications

are hardly worth repeating. The other Biblical occurrences of the
name are difficult to harmonise. The Uz of Jb. i^ (AiJo-irts), and the
Horite tribe mentioned in Gn. 36^", point to a SE situation, bordering
on or comprised in Edom and this would also suit La. 4^1, Je. 25^
;
(PJ"? 0> though in both these passages the reading is doubtful. It is
suggested by Rob. Sm. {KM^, 61) and We. {Heid. 146) that the name
is identical with that of the Arabian god 'Aud; and by the former
scholar that the OT py denotes a number of scattered tribes worship-

ping that deity (similarly Bu. Hiob. ix.-xi. but, on the other side, see
;
No. ZDMG, xl. 183 f.).

(7) h^n {Ov\)] Del. {Par. 259) identifies with a district in the neigh-
bourhood of Mt. Masius mentioned by Asshur-nasir-pal. The word
{hu-li-ia), however, is there read by Peiser as an appellative = desert '
(KIB, i. 86 f., iiof.) and no other conjecture is even plausible.

;
(8) nna is quite unknown.
* 00s "EXXijves Si^pous tt pocr ay opeiovaiv —as Jos. correctly explains.

—
X. 22, 23, 31. 32. 8 207
(9) r'? («* Nts'O, ffi Moo-ox, »" accord with i Ch. i" MT ^^d)] perhaps
connected with Mons Masius, — r6 Mdaiov 6pos of Ptol, (v. i8. 2) and Strabo
(xi. xiv. 2), —
a mountain range N of Nisibis now called Tiir- Abdin or
Kerag-a Dagh (Bo. Del. Par. 259, Di. al.). The uncertainty of the
text and the fact that the Ass. monuments use a different name render
the identification precarious. Jen. {KIB,
vi. i, 567) suggests the moun-
tain MdSu of GilgameS ix.
which he supposes to be Lebanon
ii. i f.,
and Anti-Libanus. The Mdt Mai of KIB, ii. 221, which has been
adduced as a parallel, ought, it now appears, to be read mad-bar
{KAT^, I9i2; cf. Jen. ZA, x. 364).
31, 32. P's closing formula for the Shemites {^^) ; and his
subscription to the whole Table {^^),
The Table off,
IX. i8a, X. lb. Introduction. See pp. 182, 188.

A slight discontinuity in v.^
makes it probable that ^^ is inserted from
J. would stand most naturally after 9^*^* (Di.), not after ^'.
If so, it
It seems to me that ^^ is rather the Yahwistic parallel to lo^'^ (P),

and formed originally the conclusion of J's Table (cf. the closing
formulae, lo^^ 22^^ 25^).
8-12. Nimrod and his empire. — The section deals

with the foundation of the Babylonio-Assyrian Empire,
whose legendary hero, Nimrod, is described as a son of
Kush (see below). Unlike the other names in the chapter,
Nimrod is not a people, but an individual, —a Gibbor or
despot, famous as the originator of the idea of the military
state, based on arbitrary force. — 8. The statement that he
was the first to become a Gibbor on the earth implies a dif-
ferent conception from 6*. There, the Gibborim are identi-
fied with the semi-divine Nephilim : here, the Gibbor is a
man, whose personal prowess and energy raise him above
the common level of humanity. The word expresses the
idea of violent, tyrannical power, like Ar. âbbar.
If the mn of v.^'- be Ethiopia (see p. 200 f.), it follows that in the view
of the redactor the earliest dynasty in the Euphrates valley was founded
by immigrants from Africa. That interpretation was accepted even by
Tuch but it is opposed to
; all we know of the early history of Baby-
8. -hqi (Ne^/)w5)] The Heb. naturally connects the name with the
^ ^^D = '
rebel '
(^J, Ra. al.) : see below, p. 209. 'h '7nn xin] he was the
'
;
208 TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
Ionia, and extremely improbable that it represents a Heb. tradition.

it is
The assumption of a S Arabian Kush would relieve the difficulty for ;
it is generally ag^reed that the Semitic population of Babylonia which —

goes back as far as monumental evidence carries us— actually came
from Arabia but it is entirely opposed to the ethnography of J, who
;
peoples S Arabia with descendants of Shem (^'' ^sff.), Jt is therefore

not unlikely that, as many Assyriologists think,* J's e'13 is quite inde-
pendent of the Hamitic Kdsh of P, and denotes the Kas or JâsSu, a
people who conquered Babylonia in the i8th cent., and set up a dynasty
(the 3rd) which reigned there for 600 years f {jK'AT^, 21). It is conceiv-
able that in consequence of so prolonged a supremacy, Kal might have
become a name for Babylonia, and that J's knowledge of its history
did not extend farther back than the KaSSite dynasty. Since there is no
reason to suppose that J regarded Ka§ as Hamitic, it is quite possible
that the name belonged to his list of Japhetic peoples.
9. Nimrod was not onlya great tyrant and ruler of men, but
a hero of the chase p^V "1133). The v. breaks the connexion
between ^ and ^^, and is probably an interpolation (Di. al.)
although, as De. remarks, the union of a passion for the
chase with warlike prowess makes Nimrod a true prototype
of the Assyrian monarchs, an observation amply illus- —
trated by the many hunting scenes sculptured on the monu-
ments. — Therefore it is said\ introducing a current proverb ;
cf. I Sa. 19^* with 10^2 ; Gn. 22^* etc. "When the Hebrews
first to become'; see on 4^^ 9^°.

—
v. as an9. While Di. regards the
interpolation from oral tradition, Bu. {Urg. 390 assigns it to his J^, ff. )
and finds a place for it between 6"* and ii\ a precarious sugges- —
tion. —
niiT-^] (R + Toi) Beov. '' \4S^] 'before Yahwe.' — The phrase is
variously explained: (i) 'unique,' like D'n'?x'? in Jn 3^ (Di. al.); (2) in *
the estimation of Y.' (cf. 2 Ki. 5^ etc.); (3) 'in despite of Y.' (Bu.) ;
(4) with the assistance of Y.' the name of some god of the chase
'
—
having stood in the original myth (Gu.) (5) 'in the constant presence ;
of Y.' —an allusion to the constellation Orion (Ho.). The last view is
possible in but hardly in
^'', *, because of the n\n. A sober exegesis
will prefer (1) or (2).
* See Del. Par. 51-55; Schr. KAT'^, 87 f. ; Wi. ATU, 146 ff. ; Jen.
ZA, vi. 340-2 ; Sayce, HCM^, i48ff., etc.
t Remnants of this conquering race are mentioned by Sennacherib

{KIB, ii. 87). They are thought to be identical with the Koo-o-alot of the
Greeks (Strabo, xi. xiii. 6, xvi. i. 17 f.; Arrian, Anab. vii. 15; Dio-
dorus, xvii. 11 1, xix. 19, etc.) and probably also with the Kô-crtot of Her.
;
vii.62, 86, etc. (cf. v. 49, 52, vi. 119). Cf. Del. Par. 31, 124, 127 ff. ;
Mey. GA^, § 129; Wi. GBA, 78ff. ; Schr. KGF, i-jOf. ; Oppert, ZA,
iii. 421 ff. ; Jen. ZDMG, 1. 244 f., etc.
X. 9 209
wished to describe a man as being a great hunter, they

spoke of him as Mike Nimrod " (Dri.). The expression '
—
nv"i^ "ppb doubtless belongs to the proverb the precise :
meaning is obscure {v.t.).
A perfectly convincing' Assyriologfical prototype of the figure of

Nimrod has not as yet been discovered. The derivation of the name
from Marduk, the tutelary deity of the city of Babylon, first propounded
by Sayce, and adopted with modifications by We.,* still commends
itself to some Assyriologists (Pinches, DB, iii. 552 f. ; cf. KAT^, 581);
but the material points of contact between the two personages seem too
vague to establish an instructive parallel. The identification with Nazi-
Marutta§, a late [c. 1350) and apparently not very successful king of the
Ka§§ite dynasty (Haupt, Hilprecht, Sayce, al.), is also unsatisfying the :
supposition that that particular king was so well known in Palestine as to

eclipse all his predecessors, and take rank as the founder of Babylonian
civilisation, is improbable. The nearest analogy is that of Gilgame§,f
the legendary tyrant of Erech (see v.^°), whose adventures are recorded
in the famous series of Tablets of which the Deluge story occupies
the eleventh (see p. 175 above, and KAT^y 566 ff.). Gilgamel is a true
—
Gibbor "two parts deity and one part humanity" he builds the walls —
of Erech with forced labour, and his subjects groan under his tyranny,
until they cry to Aruru to create a rival who might draw off some of his
superabundant energy {KIB, vi. i, 117, 119). Among his exploits, and
those of his companion Ea-bani, contests with beasts and monsters
figure prominently and he is supposed to be the hero so often repre-
;
sented on seals and palace-reliefs in victorious combat with a lion (see

ATLOî 266 f.). It is true that the parallel is incomplete; and (what
is more important) that the name Nimrod remains unexplained. The
expectation that the phonetic reading of the ideographic GI$. TU. BAR
might prove to be the Bab. equivalent of the Heb. Nimrod, would seem
to have been finally dispelled by the discovery (in 1890) of the correct
pronunciation as Gilgame§ (but see Je. I.e.). Still, enough general
resemblance remains to warrant the belief that the original of the
biblical Nimrod belongs to the sphere of Babylonian mythology. A
striking parallel to the visit of Gilgames to his father Ut-napi§tim
occurs in a late Nimrod legend, preserved in the Syrian Schatzhohle
(see Gu. Schopf. 146^ Lidz. ZA, vii. 15).
; On the theory which con-
nects Nimrod with the constellation Orion, see Tu. ad loc. Bu. Urg. ;
395 f. KAT^y 581^; and on the late Jewish and Mohammedan legends
;
generally, Seligsohn, y!^, ix. 309 fF.
* Sayce {TSBA,\\. 243 ff.) derived it from the Akkadian equiva-

lent of Marduk, Amar-ud, from which he thought Nimrudu would be
a regular (Ass.) Niphal form. We. {Comp.^ 309 f.) explains the 3 as an
Aram. impf. preformative to the fj itd, a corruption from Mard-uk which
took place among the Syrians of Mesopotamia, through whom the myth
reached the Hebrews.
t So Smith-Sayce, Chald. Gen. lyGff. ; Je. Isduhar-Nimrod.
14
—
2IO TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
The nucleus of his empire was Babylon

10. in the . , ,
land of Shinar\ It is not said that Nimrod founded these
four cities (ct. v.^^). The rise of the great cities of Baby-
lonia was not only much older than the Kassite dynasty, but
probably preceded the establishment of any central govern-
ment and the peculiar form of the expression here may be
;
due to a recollection of that fact. Of the four cities, two

can be absolutely identified the third is known by name, ;
but cannot be located and the last is altogether uncertain.

;
Heb. form of the native Bdb-ili=* âX^ of God'

Sna (Ba/3vXcij')] the
or *
the gods may be only a popular etymology). The
' (though this
political supremacy of the city, whose origin is unknown, dates from the
expulsion of the Elamites by Hammurabi, the sixth king of its first
dynasty {c. 2100 B.C.) and for 2000 years it remained the chief centre
;
of ancient Oriental civilisation. Its ruins lie on the left bank of the
Euphrates, about fifty miles due S. of Baghdad.
T^N ('0/)ex)] the Bab. Uruk or Arktc, now Warka, also on the
Euphrates, about 100 miles SE of Babylon. It was the city of GilgameS
(V.S.).
IJK ('ApxaS cf. p^'S'i and P^?"!"^)]
: The name [Akkad) frequently
occurs in the inscriptions, especially in the phrase Sumer and Akkad,' *
= South and North Babylonia. But a city of Akkad is also mentioned

by Nebuchadnezzar I. {KIB, iii. lyoflF.), though its site is uncertain.
Its identity with the Agad^
3800 B.C.), which was
of Sargon I. {c.
formerly suspected, is said to be confirmed by a recent decipherment.

Del. and Zim. suppose that it was close to Sippar on the Euphrates, in
the latitude of Baghdad (see Par. 209 ff. KA T^, 422^, 423^ A TLO^, 270). ; ;
n:^3 {Kakavvri)] Not to be confused with the hjSd of Am. 6^ ( = 'i3^3,

Is. 10^), which was in N Syria. The Bab. Kalne has not yet been
discovered. Del. {Par. 225) takes it to be the ideogram Kul-unu (pro-
nounced Zirlahu), of a city in the vicinity of Babylon. But Jen. {ThLz.
1895, 510) asserts that the real pronunciation was KuUab{a)y and pro-
poses to read so here (naâ).
"^ÎIV {l.ev[v]aap)\ apparently the old Heb. name for Babylonia proper
(ii^ 14^- ^ Jos. 7^^ Is. ii^S Zee. 5^S Dn. i^), afterwards antra pN or
simply '?32 ['n]. That it is the same as Sumer {sotcth Babylonia v.s.) is :
improbable. More plausible is the identification with the Sanhar of TA

Tab. {KIB, V. 83) = Eg. 5anâm (Muller, AE, 279); though Wi. {AOF,
i. 240, 399; KAT^, 31) puts it N of the Taurus. 6ebel Singar (6 2*7-
7a/jos ipo% : Ptol. v. 18. 2), W of Nineveh, is much too far north for the
biblical Shin'ar, unless the name had wandered.
II, 12, The colonisation of Assyria from Babylonia.
11. •1155'N NV;] '

he went out to Asshur (so ' ST J, Cal. and all moderns).
The rendering 'Asshur went out' (ffiU^tZT*^, Jer. al.) is grammatically

;
X. IO-I2 21 I
From that land he (Nimrod, v.i.) went out to Assyria] — where

he built four new cities. That the great Assyrian cities
were not by one king or at one period is certain
really built
nevertheless the statement has a certain historic value,
inasmuch as the whole religion, culture, and political organ-
isation of Assyria were derived from the southern state. It
is also noteworthy that the rise of the Assyrian power dates
from the decline of Babylonia under the KaSsite kings

{KAT^, 2i). In Mic. 5^ Assyria is described as the land of '
Nimrod.'
That n?5yN is here the name of the land (along- the Tigris, N of the
Lower Zab), and not the ancient capital (now KaV at Serkdt^ about half-
way between the mouths of the two Zabs), is plain from the context,
and the contrast to nyjB' in v.^".
(Ass. Ninua, Nind, dSc Nij/cut; [-t]) the foremost city of Assyria,
ni^j]
was a royal residence from at latest the time of A§§ur-bel-kalu, son of

Tiglath-pileser I. (nth cent.); but did not apparently become the
till the reign of Sennacherib (Wi. GBA, 146).
political capital Its site
isnow marked by the ruined mounds of Nebl Yunus (with a village
named Nunia) and Kuyunjik, both on the E side of the Tigris opposite
Mosul (see Hilp. EBL, 11, 88-138).
Ty nin-i ('Pow/Scbs irokiv)\ Heb. appellative significance = broad
has in *
places of a city ' (U plateas A similar phrase on Ass

civitatis).
monuments, rehit NinA, is understood to mean suburb of Nineveh *
'
;
and it has been supposed that 'y 'n is a translation of this designation into
Heb. As to the position of this suburb authorities differ. Del. {Par.
* '
260 f.) thinks it certain that it was on the N or NE side of Nineveh,

towards DOr-Sargon (the modern Khorsabad) and Johns {EB, iv. ;
4029) even identifies it with the latter (cf. KIB, ii. 47). Billerbeck, on
the other hand, places it at Mosul on the opposite side of the Tigris, as
a sort of tite du pont (see ATLO^, 273). No proper name at all
resembling this is known in the neighbourhood of Nineveh.
n^l (XaXax, KaXax) is the Ass. Kalhu or Kalah, which excavations
have proved to be the modern NimrHd, at the mouth of the Upper Zab,
20 miles S of Nineveh (Hilp. I.e. inf.). Built by Shalmaneser i.
(c. 1300), it replaced A§sur as the capital, but afterwards fell into decay,
and was restored by Assur-nasir-pal (883-59) {^^î i- i^?)- From that

time till Sargon, it seems to have continued the royal residence.
JDT (Aao-e/i, Aao-T/, etc.)] Perhaps = A'/i-m« ('fountain-head'), an
extremely common place-name in Semitic countries but its site is ;
unknown. A Syrian tradition placed it at the ruins of Khorsabad, a '
parasang above Nineveh,' where a Bds'ul-Atn is said still to be found
correct, and gives a good sense (cf. Is. 23^^). But (i) n'tJ'NT (v.^°) re-
quires an antithesis (see on i^) ; and (2) in Mic. 5' Nimrod is the hero
of Assyria.
(G. Hoffmann in Nestle, ZDMG, Iviii. 158 ff.). This is doubtless the
Ri§-ini of Sennacherib {KIB, ii. 117); but its identity with }DT is
phonetically questionable, and topographically impossible, on account
of the definition 'between Nineveh and Kelah.'
The clause rh'^v^ n'i;n «in is almost universally, but very improbably,
taken to imply that the four places just enumerated had come to be
regarded as a single city. Schr. {KAT^, 99 f-) is responsible for the
statement that from the time of Sennacherib the name Nineveh was
extended to include the whole complex of cities between the Zab and
the Tigris but more recent authorities assure us that the monuments
;
contain no trace of such an idea {KAT^, 75^; Gu.^ 78; cf. Johns, EB^
3420). The fabulous dimensions given by Diodorus (ii. 3 cf. Jon. 3^*') ;
must proceed on some such notion and it is possible that that might ;
have induced a late interpolator to insert the sentence here. But if the
words be a gloss, it is more probable that it springs from the ^'\'\'^n n^yn
of Jn. i^, which was put in the margin opposite nu':, and crept into the
text in the wrong place {ATLO^, 273).*
13, 14. —The sons of Mizraim. —These doubtless all
represent parts or Egypt;

(supposed) dependencies of
although of the eight names not more than two can be
certainly identified. —
On Q)"]^'? = Egypt, see v.^. Since —
Mizraim could hardly have been reckoned a son of Canaan,
the section (if documentary) must be an extract from that
Yahwistic source to which 9^^^- belong (see p. 188 f.).
(1) oni"? (AonStei/ACh. i^^ D'ni'?)] Not the Lydians of Asia Minor
: i
{A TLO^, 274), who can

hardly be thought of in this connexion but (if ;
the text be correct) some unknown people of NE Africa (see on v.^^,

p. 206). The prevalent view of recent scholars is that the word is a
mistake for D^nî'?, the Lybians. See Sta. Ak. Red. 141 MuUer, AE, ;
ii5f. ; OLz, V. 475; al.
(2) woiz (juu- D'ory ; (& A/j'-['E»'-]e/AeTtet/i[j'])] Miiller reads d'dj3 or

(after (&) D'nD33 ; i.e. the inhabitants of the Great Oasis of Knmt in the
Libyan desert ( Wdhdt el-Khdrigah).^ For older conjectures see Di.
* With the above hypothesis, Schr.'s argument that, since Nineveh

is here used in the restricted sense, the passage must be of earlier date
than Sennacherib, falls to the ground. From the writer's silence
regarding ASSur, the ancient capital, it may safely be inferred that he
lived after 1300 and from the omission of Sargon's new residence DAr-
;
Sargon, it is probable that he wrote before 722. But the latter argument
is not decisive, since Kelah and Nineveh (the only names that can be
positively identified) were both flourishing cities down to the fall of the
Empire.
+ OLz. V. 471 ff. —
It should be explained that this dissertation,
frequently cited above, proceeds on the bold assumption that almost
the best known name in the section (D'P"i^9, ^*) is an interpolation.
X. 13, 14 213
(3) D'?nS (Aa/Siet^w)] commonly supposed to be the Lybians, the (n>h)

D'??^ of Nah. 38, Dn. ii«, 2 Ch. la" 168, [Ezk. 30"?]. Muller thinks it a
variant of on;*? (i).
(4) D'nnsj (NecpOaKieifi)] D'n:n2 = P-to-n- hf, 'cow-

Muller proposes
land,' —the name of the Oasis of Fardfra.
But there is a strong- pre-
sumption that, as the next name stands for Upper Egypt, this will be a
designation of Lower Egypt. So Erman {ZATW, x. ii8f.), who reads
D'nons = p-t-mahT, 'the north-land,' — at all periods the native name of
Lower Egypt. More recently Splegelberg (<9Z^. ix. 276 ff.) recognises
in it an old name of the Delta, and reads without textual change
Na-patM = 'the people of the Delta.'
(5) ci'pnri3 {UaTpoa-ojvieifjt.)] the inhabitants of oin^s (Is. 11", Jer. 44^* ^^
Ezk. 30^^), i.e. Upper Egypt: P-to-resi = ' south-land ' (Ass. paturisi):
see Erman, I.e.
(6) D'n^ps (Xacr/AWj/ief/*)] Doubtful conjectures in Di. Muller restores

with help of (& which he identifies with the Nacra/iwi'es of Her. ii.
D'^DDJ,
32, iv. 172, 182, 190, —

a powerful tribe of nomad Lybians, near the
Oasis of Amon. Sayce has read the name Kasluhat on the inscr. of
Ombos (see on Kaphtorim, below) Man, 1903, No. 77. ;
(7) D'Pi;?'^? (ûXtariei/i)] The Philistines are here spoken of as an

—
offshoot of the Kasluhim, a statement scarcely intelligible in the
light of other passages (Jer. 47*, Am. 9"^ cf. Dt. 2^-^), according to which
;
the Ph. came from Kaphtor. The clause 's Da'p in>',; "ya^, is therefore in
all probability a marginal gloss meant to come after onns^. The Ph. —
are mentioned in the Eg. monuments, under the name Purasati, as the
leading people in a great invasion of Syria in the reign of Ramses HI.
{c. 1175 B.C.). The invaders came both by land and sea from the coasts
of Asia Minor and the islands of the ^gean and the Philistines ;
established themselves on the S coast of Palestine so firmly that, though

nearly all traces of their language and civilisation have disappeared,
their name has clung to the country ever since. See Muller, AE, 387-
90, and MVAG, v. 2ff. Moore, £B, iii. 3713 ff.
;
(8) Dnjn?3 {Xa(pdopt€i/ji)] Kaphtor (Dt. z^. Am. 9', Jer. 47^) has usually
been taken for the island of Crete (see Di.), mainly because of the
repeated association of Q'n-1.3 (Cretans?) with the Philistines and the
Philistine territory i Sa. 30^^* '^, Ezk. 25^^, Zeph. 2*).
( There are con-
vincing reasons for connecting with Keftiu (properly the country
it '
behind'^, an old Eg. name 'lands of the Great Ring' (the

for the
Eastern Mediterranean), or the isles of the Great Green,' i.e.
'
Asia SW
Minor, Rhodes, Crete, and the Mycenian lands beyond, to the of NW
Egypt (see Muller, AE, 337, 344-53, 387 fF. and more fully H. R. Hall ;
\n Annual of the British School at Athens, 1901-2, pp. 162-6). The pre-
cise phonetic equivalent Kptdr has been found on a late mural decora-
tion at Ombos (Sayce, HCM^y 173; EHH, 291 ; Muller, MVAG, 1900,
When cuckoo's egg is ejected, the author finds that the sons of
this *
'
* '
Egypt are dependencies or foreign possessions, and are to be sought

all
outside the Nile valley. The theory does not seem to have found much
favour from Egyptologists or others.
5 ff.).
**
Keftiu is the old Eg. name of Caphtor (Crete), Keptar a Ptole-
maic doublet of it, taken over when the original meaning of Keftiu had"
been forgotten, and the name had been erroneously applied to Phoenicia
(Hall, Man, Nov. 1903, No. 92, p. 162 ff.). In OLz., M. questions the
originality of the name in this passage so also Je. ATLOP-, 275.*
:
15-19. The Canaanites.—The peoples assigned to the

Canaanitish group are (i) the Phoenicians (H^V), (2) the Hittites
(nn), and (3) a number of petty communities perhaps summed
up in the phrase ^}t}j^^ nina^'p in
^^^. It is surprising to
find the great northern nation of the Hittites classed as a
subdivision of the Canaanites. The writer may be supposed
to have in view offshoots of that empire, which survived as
small enclaves in Palestine proper ; but that explanation
does not account for the marked prominence given to Heth
over the little Canaanite kingships. On the other hand,
one hesitates to adopt Gu.'s theory that jj;3D is here used in a
wide geographical sense as embracing the main seats of the
Hittite empire (p. 187). There is evidence, however, of a
strong settlement of Hittites near Hermon (see below), and
it is conceivable that these were classed as Canaanites and
so inserted here.
Critically, thew. are difficult. We. {Comp.^ 15) and others remove
i6-i8a
a,s because (a) the boundaries laid down in ^^ are exceeded
a gloss :
in "• ^**, and {b) the mention of a subsequent dispersion of Canaanites

('8»') has no meaning after
^^"i^. That is perhaps the most reasonable
view to take but even so ^^^ does not read quite naturally after ^^ and
; ;
what could have induced a glossator to insert four of the most northerly
Phoenician cities, passing by those best known to the Hebrews? Is it
15. nbg] (J).— 18. nnx] adv. of time, as iS^ 24^5 3021 etc.
cf. 22^1 =
l3-n.q«: see Niph. fr. J pa see on g^^ cf. ii"- ^'
BOB, 29f.— issi] ; i ^—
'iy^5n m^-jfal can hardly, even if the clause be a gloss, denote the Phoen.
colonies on the Mediterranean (Brown, EB, ii. 1698 f.).— 19. npK^] *as
one comes' (see G-K. § 144 A) might be taken as in the direction of *
(so Di. Dri. al.) but there does not appear to be any clear case in
;
which the expression differs from ?ixi3ny = 'as far as' (cf. lo** 13^° 25^8
[all J], I Sa. 157 with Ju. 6" ii=«, i Sa. 17^2, 2 Sa. 52^, i Ki. iS'iS).— nj^y]
<& Kal Vdâv.
so many peculiar features the regular use of the

* V.^'^- present —
pi.,the great preponderance of quadriliteral names, all vocalised alike
— that we can hardly help suspecting that they are a secondary addition
to the Table, written from specially intimate acquaintance with the
(later?) Egyptian geography.
X. 15. i6 215
possible that the last five names were originally g-iven as sons of
Heth, and the previous four as sons of Zidon ? '^^ might mean that the
Canaanite clans emanated from Phoenicia, and were afterwards 'dis-
persed' over the region defined by ".—The change from 1^33 in to '^^
'jyjan in ^^^'-^ is hardly sufficient to prove diversity of authorship (Gu.)
p'V] The oldest of the Phoenician cities ; now Saida, nearly 30 miles
S of the promontory of Beirut. Here, however, the name is the eponym
of the ?idonians (d'jt>{), as the Phoenicians were frequently called, not
only in OT (Ju. 18' f, 1 Ki. 520 iGî etc.) and Homer (//. vi. 290 f., etc.),
but on the Ass. monuments, and even by the Phoenicians themselves
(Mey. EB^ iv. 4504).
nn {jhv XeTraroj/)] elsewhere only in the phrases 'n '39, 'n r^r^ (ch. 23
pass. 25^°27^6'' 49^2 [all P]) other writers speak of [D]>rin. The Hittites
;
(Eg. Heta, Ass. ffatti) were a northern non-Semitic people, who under
unknown circumstances established themselves in Cappadocia. They
appear to have invaded Babylonia at the close of the First dynasty (r. 1930
B.C.) (King, Chronicles cone, early Bah. Kings, p. 72 f.). Not long after
the time of Thothmes iii. (1501-1447), they are found in N Syria. With
the weakening of the Eg. supremacy in the Tel-Amarna period, they
pressed further S, occupying the Orontes valley, and threatening the
Phoenician coast- cities. The indecisive campaigns of Ramses ii. seem to
have checked their southward movement. In Ass. records they do not
appear till the reign of Tiglath-pileser i. {c. 1 100), when they seem to have
held the country from the Taurus and Orontes to the Euphrates, with Car-
chemish as one of their chief strongholds. After centuries of intermittent
warfare, they were finally incorporated in the Ass. Empire by Sargon 11.
{c. 717). See Paton, Syr. and Pal. io4ff. —
The OT allusions to the
Hittites are extremely confusing, and cannot be fully discussed here :
see on 15^-21 23^ Besides the Palestinian Hittites (whose connexion

with the people just spoken of may be doubtful), there is mention of an
extensive Hittite country to the N
of Palestine (2 Sa. 24^ [(&^ ], i Ki.
lo^^ 2 Ki. 7^ al.). The most important
fact for the present purpose is
the definite location of Hittites in the Lebanon region, or at the foot of
Hermon (Jos. ii^ [(K^-^'J and Ju. 3^ [as amended by Mey. al.]), cf.
Ju. i^^?). It does not appear what grounds Moore {Ju, 82) has for
the statement that these Hittites were Semitic. There is certainly no
justification for treating (with Jast. EBy 2094) nn in this v. as a gloss.
The four names which follow are names of Canaanitish clans which
constantly recur in enumerations of the aborigines of Palestine, and
seldom elsewhere.
(i) 'pn;n] The clan settled in and around Jerusalem: Jos. 15* 18^, Ju.
191®, 2 Sa. 5*^-9 etc.
(2) no^n] An
important politico-geographical name in the Egyptian
and cuneiform documents (Eg. Amor, etc.. Ass. Amurru). In the TA
Tablets the land of Amurru denotes the Lebanon region behind the
'
'
Phoenician coast-territory. Its princes Abd-A§irta and Aziru were

then the most active enemies of the Egyptian authority in the north,
conducting successful operations against several of the Phoenician
cities. It has been supposed that subsequently to these events the
;
2l6 TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
Ainorites pressed southwards, and founded kingdoms in Palestine both

E and W
of the Jordan (Nu. 2ii3ff.^
Jqs. 24^ etc.) though Miiller has
;
pointed out some difficulties in the way of that hypothesis {AE, 230 f.).
— In the OT there appears an occasional tendency to restrict the name
to ' highlanders (Nu. 13^^ Dt. 1'), but this is more than neutralised by
'
other passages (Ju. 1^^). The most significant fact is that E (followed
by D) employs the term to designate the pre-Israelite inhabitants of
Palestine generally (cf. Am. 2^^), whom J describes as Canaanites.
Apart from the assumption of an actual Amorite domination, it is
difficult to suggest an explanation of E's usage, unless we can take it
as a survival of the old Bab. name Amurru (or at least its ideographic
equivalent MAJ^. TU) for Palestine, Phoenicia and Coele-Syria. See, —
further, Miiller, AE, 218 ffi, 229flF.; Wi. GI, i. 51-54,^^7^, 178^; Mey.
ZATW, i. 122 ff. We. Comp.^ 341 Bu. Urg. 344 ff. Dri. Deut. iif..
; ; ;
Gen. I25f. Sayce, DB, i. 84 f.

;
Paton, Syr. and Pal. 25-46, iisffi,
;
147 f. ; Mey. GA\ i. ii. § 396.
(3) T3-i?n]only mentioned in enumerations {iS^^t Dt. 7^, Jos. 3^° 24",
Neh. 9^) without indication of locality. B-Jni, Wm-M, 'm-\y occur as prop,
names on Punic inscrs. (Lidzbarski, Nord-sem. Epigr. 4054, 6224^, 6733
Ephem. i. 36, 308). Ewald conjectured a connexion with T^pyeaa. NT
(4) '^nn (t.
Evaiov)] a tribe of central Palestine, in the neighbourhood
of Shechem (34^) and Gibeon (Jos. 9') in Ju. 3^ where they are spoken ;
of in the N, 'mri should be read, and in Jos. ii^ Hittites and Hivvites
should be transposed in accordance with ®r^ The name has been .
explained by Ges. (Th.) and others as meaning dwellers innin (Bedouin '
'
encampments cf. Nu. 32*^) but that is improbable in the case of a

: ;
people long settled in Palestine (Moore). We. {ffeid. 154) more plausibly
connects it with n3n = serpent (see on 3^0), surmising that the Hivvites
' '
were a snake-clan. Cf. Lagarde, OS, 187, 174, 1. 97 (EvaToi (tkoXioI wj
The 5 remaining names are formed from names of cities, 4 in the
extreme N of PhoRnicia, and the last in Coele-Syria.
(5) 'Pl^^ (*^

from the city "ApKT) iv rtf At^dvip
'pTiV'i, (5 r. 'ApovKocov)] is
(Jos.Anl. 1. 138), the ruins of which, still bearing the name Tell 'Arka, are
found on the coast about 12 miles NE of Tripolis. It is mentioned by
Thothmes ill. (in the form 'r-ka-n-iu see AE, 247 f.), and in TA letters :
{Irkala KIB, v. 171, etc.) also by Shalmaneser ii. {K/B, i. 173 along
: ; ;
with Arvad and Sianu, below), and Tiglath-pileser IV. {tb. ii. 29 along ;
with Simirra and Sianu).

(6) 'ysn (r.Aaevvalov)] inhabitants of j;p. Ass. Stanu {KIB, ll.cc).
'
Jer. {Qucsst.) says it was not far from Arka, but adds that only the name '
remained in his day. The site is unknown see Cooke, EB, iv. 4644 f. :
(7) 'in^C ('^- 'Apddiop)] 'Arwad

(Ezk. 27^- ^^) was the most northerly
of the Phoenician cities, built on a small island (Strabo, XVI. ii. 13;
K'lB, i. 109) about 35 miles of Tripolis (now Rtiad). It is namedN
frequently, in connexions which show its great importance in ancient
f.), on TA Tab., and by Ass. kings from
times, in Eg. inscrs. iÂE, 186
Tiglath pileser I. to Asshurbanipal {KAT^y 104 f. Del. Par. 281); see ;
also Her. vii. 98.

—
X. 17-19, 21 217
(8) nnyn
(r, "SafiapaXov)] Six miles S of Ruad, the modern village of
Sumra preserves the name of this city Eg. Samar TA, Sumur Ass. : ; ;
Simirra; Gr. HiLfivpa. See Strabo, XVI. ii. 12; AE, 187; KAT^, 105;
Del. Par. 281 f.
(9) 'n?.-n (r. 'A/iaÔ] from the well-known Hamath on the Orontes ;
now ffamd.
The delimitation of the Canaanite boundary in v." is very obscure.
It describes two sides of a triangle, from Zidon on the to Gaza or N
Gerar in the SW
and from thence to a point near the S end of the
;
Dead Sea. The terminus V^) (ffi Aacra) is, however, unknown. The
traditional identification (STJ, Jer.) with KaWippor], near the N end of
the Dead Sea, is obviously unsuitable. Kittel, (very improbably), BH
suggests y'?|(i42). or c^S (Jos. i9^^D^.^) = *to
We. {Comp.^ 15) reads rv^h
Dan (e'?^), the conventional yiorthern limit of Canaan, thus completing
' —
the E side of the triangle. —
Gerar were certainly further S. than Gaza
(see on 20^) ; hence we cannot read as far as {v.i.) Gerar, up to Gaza,'
*
while the rendering ' i?ithe direction of Gerar, as far as Gaza,' would
only be intelligible if Gerar were a better known locality than Gaza.
Most probably a gloss (Gu.
njy-ny is — On the situation of Sodom,
al.). etc.,
see on ch. 19. — On any construction of the the northern cities ofv. ^''- ^^
are excluded. ixx has an entirely different text : "^nan nnjn ly onsD '\n^'D
jnnNn d'.t nyi m£3 inj, — an amalgam of 15^^ a,nd Dt. ii^^.
21, 24, 25-30. The Shemites. —The genealogy of

Shem in J resolves itself entirely into a classification of the
peoples whose origin was traced to 'Eber. These fall into
two main branches the descendants of Peleg (who are not
:
here enumerated), and the Yoktanites or S Arabian tribes.

Shem is thus nothing more than the representative of the
unity of the widely scattered Hebraic stock Shemite and
:
* Hebrew '
are convertible terms. This recognition of the
ethnological affinity of the northern and southern Semites is
a remarkable contrast to P, who assigns the S Arabians to
—
Ham, the family with which Israel had least desire to be
associated.
•uy is theeponym of Dn^y (Hebrews), the name by which the Israel-

ites are often designated in distinction from other peoples, down to
the time of Saul* (see G-K. § 2 ^> the pass, are cited in BDB, s.v.).
:
It
is strange at first sight that while the iny 'J3 of v.î include all Shemites
known to J, the gentilic word is historically restricted to Israelites.

The difficulty is perhaps removed by the still disputed, but now widely
* After I Sa. it occurs only Dt. 15^2^ j^j.. 348. "^ jon. i*. But see
the cogent criticisms of Weinheimer in ZATW, 1909, 275 ff., who pro-
pounds the view that Hebrews and Israelites were distinct strata of the
population.
;'
2l8 TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
accepted, theory that Habiri in the TA letters is the cuneiform equiva-

lent of the OT
cnaj;. The equation presents no philological difficulty :
Ass. ^ often represents a foreign y and Eerdmans' statement {A T

;
Studien, ii. 64), that the sign â never stands for (if true) is worthless, ]l.
ior ffa-za-ki-ya-u = \nîim shows that Ass. a may become in z, and OT

this is all that it is necessary to prove. The historical objections
vanish if the Habiri be identified, not with the Israelitish invaders after
the Exodus, but with an earlier immigration of Semitic nomads into
Palestine, amongst whom the ancestors of Israel were included. The
chief uncertainty arises from the fact that the phonetic writing Ffa-bi-ri
occurs only in a limited group of letters, — those of 'Abd-hiba of
Jerusalem (179, 180 The ideogram 5^. G-t^S" (* robbers ')
[182], 183, 185).
in other letters is conjectured to have the same value, but this is not
absolutely demonstrated. Assuming that Wi. and others are right in
equating the two, the âbiri are in evidence over the whole country,
occasionally as auxiliaries of the Egyptian government, but chiefly as
its foes. The inference is very plausible that they were the roving
Bedouin element of the population, as opposed to the settled inhabitants,
—presumably a branch of the great Aramaean invasion which was then
overflowing Mesopotamia and Syria (see above, p. 206 cf. Wi. A OF, ;
iii. 90 if., KA 7^, 196 ff.; Paton, Syr. and Pah 111 ff".). There is thus a
strong probability that onny was originally the name of a group of
tribes which invaded Palestine in the 15th cent. B.C., and that it was
afterwards applied to the Israelites as the sole historic survivors of the
—
immigrants. Etymologically, the word has usually been interpreted as
meaning those from beyond the river (cf. niijn nny, Jos. 2^^- ^*'-) and
*
' ;
on that assumption, the river is certainly not the Tigris (De.), and
almost certainly not the Jordan (We. Kau. Sta.), but (in accordance
with prevailing tradition) the "inj of the OT, the Euphrates, beyond '
which lay Harran, the city whence Abraham set out. Hommel's view
{AHT, 252 ff".) has no proljability (cf. Dri. 139^). The vb. nay, however,
does not necessarily mean to cross (a stream) it sometimes means
*
' ;
simply to traverse a region (Jer. 2^) and in this sense Spiegelberg

*
' ;
has recently (1907) revived an attractive conjecture of Goldziher {Mythos,

p. 66), that onDj? signifies 'wanderers' —
nomads {OLz. x. 618 ffl).*
21. The father of all the sons of *Eber\ The writer has
apparently borrowed a genealogical list of the descendants
21. It is doubtful if the text is in order. First, it is extremely likely

that the introduction to the section on Shem would require modifica-
in J
tion to prevent contradiction with v.^'' (P). Then, the omission of the
logical subj. to n^; is suspicious. The Pu. of this vb. never dispenses
* In Egyptian texts from Thothmes ill. to Ramses iv., the word

'Apuriu {'Apriu) occurs as the name of a foreign population in Egypt
and had been identified by Chabas with the Hebrews of OT. The
identification has been generally discarded, on grounds which seemed
cogent; but has recently been revived by Hommel [AHT, 259), and
— —;
X. 21, 24 219
of Eber which he was at a loss to connect with the name of

Shem. Hence he avoids the direct assertion that Shem
begat Eber, and bridges over the gap by the vague hint
that Shem and Eber stand for the same ethnological abstrac-
tion. the elder brother of Yepheth\ The Heb. can mean
nothing else {y.i.). The difficulty is to account for the
selection of Japheth for comparison with Shem, the oldest
member of the family. Unless the clause be a gloss, the
most obvious inference is that the genealogy of Japheth had
immediately preceded ; whether because in the Table of J
the sequence of age was broken (Bu. 305 f.), or because
Japheth was really counted the second son of Noah (Di.).
The most satisfactory solution is undoubtedly that of Gu.,
who finds in the remark an indication that this Table
followed the order: Canaan — Japheth — Shem (see p. 188).
24 is an interpolation (based on 11 ^^-uj intended to harmonise
J with P. It cannot be the continuation of ^^ as it stands
(since we have not been informed who Arpaksad was), and

still less in the form suggested below. It is also obviously
inconsistent with the plan of P's Table, which deals with
with the subj. nor does the Hoph. the Niph. does so once (Gn. 17^^ [P])
;
but there the ellipsis is explained by the emphasis which lies on the fact
of birth. Further, a wn is required as subj. of the cl. '1JI '3K. The
impression is produced that orig-inally nny was expressly named as the
son of Shem, and that the words 'iai 'DN nih referred to him (perhaps
'1J1 'DN Nin na^nx n^; db'Si). Considering- the importance of the name, the
tautology is not too harsh. It would then be hardly possible to retain
the clause 'iai »nN ; and to delete it as a gloss (although it has been pro-
posed by others see OH^ I admit to be difficult, just because of the
:
—
obscurity of the expression. Nin dj] cf. a^^. Snjn ns' mN] 'S correctly —
fratre J, ntajore. The Mass. accentuation perhaps favours the gram-
matically impossible rendering' of (& {d5e\<p<^ 'I. rod fM€i(;ovos), 2, al. ;
which implies that Japheth was the oldest of Noah's sons, a notion —
extorted from the chronology of 11" cpd. with 5^^ 7^^ (see Ra. lEz.).
It is equally inadmissible (with lEz.) to take hiMn absolutely ( = Japheth
the great). See Bu. 304 ff. —24. n'?B'-nN] (& pref. n*?' ]yp^ p'p-riN.
(with arguments which seem very convincing) by Heyes {Bib. u. Aeg.,

1904, 146 In view of the striking resemblance to ffabirt, and the
ff.).
new facts brought to light by the TA

Tablets, the hypothesis certainly
deserves to be reconsidered (cf. Eerdmans, I.e. 52 ff., or Expos. y 1909,
ii. 197 ff.).
— '
nations and not with individual genealogies (note also T?J

instead of n^bin).
25. The two sons of Eber represent the Northern and
Southern Semites respectively, corresponding roughly to
Aramaeans and Arabs we may compare with Jast. [DB^ v. :
82 a) the customary division of Arabia into Sam (Syria) and

Yemen. The older branch, to which the Israelites belonged,
is not traced in detail we may assume that a Yahwistic :
genealogy to iji^ff. [p]j existed, showing the descent of

(||
Abraham from Peleg and from scattered notices (19^^- ;
2220ff. 25^^-
etc.) we can form an idea of the way in which
the northern and central districts were peopled by that

family of Hebrews.' On ^^3, see below.
*
—
For in his days
the earth was divided (njpDJ)] a popular etymology naturally
suggested by the root, which in Heb. (as in Aram. Arab,
etc.) expresses the idea of division ' '
(cf. the vb. in Ps. 55^^ Jb.
3825). There is no very strong reason to suppose that the
dispersion (^njli^S, W etc.) of the Tower of Babel is referred
to; it is possible that some other tradition regarding the
distribution of nations is followed [e.g. Jub. viii. 8 ff.), or
that the allusion is merely to the separation of the Yoktanites

from their northern kinsmen.
J79 ($a\eAc, $aXe7, $aXex)] as a common noun means * watercourse
or artificial canal (Ass. palgu) Is. ô^, Ps. i^ 65^^ Jb. 29^ etc. Hence :
it has been thought that the name orig-inally denoted some region
intersected by irrigating channels or canals, such as Babylonia itself.
Of geographical identifications there are several which are sufficiently
plausible Phalga in Mesopotamia, at the junction of the Chaboras and
:
the Euphrates (Knob.) êl-Fal^, a district in NE Arabia near the head

;
of the Persian Gulf (Lag. Or. ii. 50) 'el-Afla^, S of 6ebel Tuwaik in ;
central Arabia (Homm. AA, 222^).

jep; ('le/cra;/)] otherwise unknown, is derived by Fleischer (Goldz.
Mythos, from sj âtana =' ho. settled.' The Arab genealogists
p. 67)
identified him with Kahtdn, the legendary ancestor of a real tribe, who
was (or came to be) regarded as the founder of the Yemenite Arabs
(Margoliouth, DB, ii. 743). On the modern stock of 'el-Kahtan, and its
sinister reputation in the more northerly parts of the Peninsula, see
Doughty, Arab. Des. i. 129, 229, 282, 343, 389, 418, ii. 39 ff., 437.
26-30. The sons of Yoktan number 13, but in (^ (see on

25. n^*;] Jtw-ffi- n*?' ; but 0^:5 'J?' is possibly ace. after pass, as 4^^
etc. (G-K. § i2ia, 6)— rnx— nnxn] similarly 22^^ (J).— 26. Some MSS
have mD-i^n, as if = *
court of death.'
X. 25-28 221
?2)V below) only i2, which may be the original number.

The few names that can be satisfactorily identified (Shelephy
Hasarfnaweth, Sheba^ Havilah) point to S Arabia as the
home of these tribes.
(i) TjiopN ('EX;Uw5a5)] The St« is variously explained as
unknown.
the Ar. art. not Sabsean), as '-£'/=* God,' and as 'a/=
(but this is
*family and nmo as a derivative of the vb. for * love {wadda), equivalent
' ; '
to Heb. nn; (Wi. MVAG, vi. 169) cf. Glaser, Skizze, ii. 425
; I)B, i. 67. ;
(2) ^^ (2aXe0)] A Yemenite tribe or district named onSabsean inscrs.,

and also by Arab, geographers see Homm. SA Chrest. 70 Osiander in
:
;
ZDMGy xi. perhaps identical with the Salapeni of Roman writers.

153 fif.,
Cognate place-names are said to be still common in S Arabia (Glaser).

(3) "I'rl^n {^ h.(rapfxu}d)] The modern province of ^ladramaut, on the S
coast, E of Yemen. The name appears in Sabaean inscrs. of 5th and 6th
cent. A.D., and is slightly disguised in the Xarpafx-wTtTai of Strabo (xvi.
iv. 2), the Chatramotitce of Pliny, vi. 154 (AtrajnitcBy vi. 155, xii. 52?).
(4) ""^v
('lapaS)] uncertain. The attempts at identification proceed on
the appellative sense of the word ( = *moon'), but are devoid of plausi-
bility (see Di.).
(5) ^T^^ {"^ mnx, (& '05oppa)\ likewise unknown. A place called
Dauram close to San a has been suggested the name is found in :
Sabaean (Glaser, 426, 435).

(6) ^m mentioned by Ezk. (27^^ rd. '?t5Np) as a
{jjx hvi<, (& M^TjX)] :
place whence iron and spices were procured. It is commonly taken to
be the same as Azdl, which Arab, tradition declares to be the old name
'
of Sana, now the capital of Yemen. Glaser (310, 427, 434, etc.) disputes
the tradition, and locates 'Uzal in the neighbourhood of Medina.*
(7) ''î?'' (Ae\'Xa)] Probably the Ar. and Aram, word {dakal, «??!, IJj^})
for 'date-palm,' and therefore the name of some noted palm-bearing

oasis of Arabia. Glaser {MVAG, 1897, 438) and Hommel {AA, 282 f.)
identify it with the ôlvlkwv of Procopius, and the modern 60/ esSirhdn,
30° NL (as far N as the head of the Red Sea).
(8) hysv {xix and i Ch. i^^ Sa'y, l&^ TaiâX)] supposed to be the word
'Abily a frequent geographical name in Yemen (Glaser, 427). The name
is omitted by many MSS of by (&^ in i Ch. i^ (see Nestle,
ffi, also
MM, 10), where some Heb. MSS and S' have '?my.
('AjSt/ieTjX)] apparently a tribal name ( = father is God *
(9) '?NC)'3^| '), of
genuine Sabsean formation (cf. nnnyoaN, ZDMG, xxxvii. 18), not hitherto
identified.
* In view of the uncertainty of the last three names, it is worthy of
attention that the account of Asshurbanipal's expedition against the

Nabatseans {KIB, ii. 221) mentions, in close conjunction, three places,
Hurarina, Yarki, and Azalla, which could not, of course, be as far S as
Yemen, but might be as far as the region of Medina. In spite of the
phonetic differences, the resemblance to Hadoram, Yeraî, and 'Ozal is
noteworthy. See, however, Glaser, 273 ff. 309 ff. ,
'
2 22 TABLE OF PEOPLES (j)
(lo) N3f] see on v.' (p. 203). The general connexion suggests that
the Sabaeans are already established in Yemen ; although, if 'tJzal be as
far N as Medina, the inference is perhaps not quite certain.
(ii) 19'iN (Oi)0et/))] known to the Israelites as a gold-producing
country (Is. i3^S Ps. 45I0, Jb. 22^ 28^ i Ch. 29^ [Sir. 7^8]), visited by the
ships of Solomon and Hiram, which brought home not only gold and
silverand precious stones, but almug-wood, ivory, apes and (?) peacocks
(i Ki. 9^8 io^^-2"^; cf. 22"*^). Whether this familiarity with the name
implies a clear notion of its geographical position may be questioned ;
but it can hardly be doubted that the author of the Yahwistic Table
believed it to be in Arabia and although no name at all resembling
;
Ophir has as yet been discovered in Arabia, that remains the most
probable view (see Glaser, Skizze, ii. 357-83)- O^ other identifications
the most important are Abhira in India, E of the mouths of the Indus
:
(Lassen); (2) the Sofala coast (opposite Madagascar), behind which

remains of extensive gold-diggings were discovered around Zimbabwe
in 1871 the ruins, however, have now been proved to be of native
:
African origin, and not older than the 14th or 15th cent. A.D. (see D.
Randall-Maciver, Mediceval Rhodesia [1906]) (3) Apir {ori^mBWy Hapir), ;
Sin old name for the ruling race in Elam, and for the coast of the
Persian Gulf around Bushire (see Homm. AHT, 236^ Hiising, OLz, vi. ;
-167 ff. Jen. ZDMG, 1. 246).

;
If we could suppose the name transferred
to the opposite (Arabian) coast of the gulf, this hypothesis would

satisfy the condition required by this passage, and would agree in
particular with Glaser's localisation. For a discussion of the various
theories, see the excellent summary by Che. in EB, iii. 3513 ft Price, ;
DB, iii. 626 ff. ; and Dri. Gen.^ xxvi. f., 131.
(12) n^'iq] see p. 202.

(13) 35V ('Iw/3a^)] unknown. Halevy and Glaser (ii. 303) compare
the Sabsean name Yuhaibab.
The from N to S) of the Yoktanite territory are
limits (probably
specified in v.^ but a satisfactory explanation is impossible owing to
;
the uncertainty of the three names mentioned in it (Di.).— K^p (Matraiye)

has been supposed to be Mesene ( ^ » ^. Maisdn), within the Delta of
the Euphrates-Tigris (Ges. Th. 823; Tu.); but the antiquity of this
25I*) in
name is not established. Di., following (&, reads Niyp (see on
N Arabia. This as northern limit would just include Diklah, if
Glaser's identification, given above, be correct.— m,ap (Swîjpa) is
generally acknowledged to be âfar in the S of Arabia. There were
two places of the name one in the interior of Yemen, N of Aden the
: ;
other (now pronounced 'Is/dr or 'Isfdr) on the coast of Mahra, near

Mirbat. The latter was the capital of the Himyarite kings (Ges. Th.
968 DB, iv. 437 EB, iv. 4370). Which of the two is here meant is
; ;
a matter of little consequence.— oni^n nn] It is difficult to say whether

this is an apposition to D^îD (Tu. al.), or a definition of -SO, or is a
continuation of the line beyond nsD. On the first view the mountain '
might be the highlands of central Arabia {Negd) the second is recom- ;
mended by the fact that the eastern Zafar lies at the foot of a high
mountain, well adapted to serve as a landmark. The third view is not
X. 28-30, XI. 1-9 223
assisted by rendering- npNi *

in the direction of (see on v.^') ; for in any
case Zafar must have been the terminus in a southern direction. The
commonly received opinion is that Dipn nrt is the name of the Frank-
incense Mountain between Hadramaut and Mahra (see Di.).
XI. i-(^.—The Tower of Babel (]),
A mythical or legendary account of the breaking up of

the primitive unity of mankind into separate communities,
distinguished and isolated by differences of language.
The
story reflects same time the impression made on
at the
Semitic nomads by the imposing monuments of Babylonian
civilisation. To such stupendous undertakings only an
undivided humanity could have addressed itself; and the
existing disunitedness of the race is a divine judgement on
the presumptuous impiety which inspired these early mani-
festations of human genius and enterprise.
Gu. has apparently succeeded in disentangling- two distinct but
kindred legends, which are both Yahwistic (cf. mn', vv.'' ^- ^), and
**• **•
have been blended with remarkable skill. One has crystallised round
the name Babel,' and its leading motive is the " confusion " of tongues
'
;
the other around the memory of some ruined tower, which tradition
connected with the "dispersion" of the race. Gu.'s division will be
best exhibited by the following continuous translations :
A. The Babel-Recension : (^) ^nc? The Tower-Recension:

B. . . .
it was, when all the earth had one (^) And when they broke up from
speech and one vocabulary, (^*) that the East, they found a plain in the
they said to one another, Come ! Let land of Shin ar, and settled there,
us make bricks and burn them [And they said. Let us build] (^^/S^)
thoroughly. (*^*. 7) And they said, a tower, with its top reaching to
Come! Let us build us a city, and heaven, lest we disperse over the
make ourselves a name. (^*») And face of the whole earth, i^'^) And
Yahwe said, Behold it is one people, they had brick for stone and asphalt
and all of one language. (') Come! for mortar. (^) And Yahwe came
Let us go down and confound there down to see the tower which the
their language, so that they may sons of men had built. [And He
not understand one another s speech, said .\ {^^^'°'^ and this is but the
. .
i^'^) and that they may cease to build beginning of their enterprise ; and
the city. (^*) Therefore is its name now nothing will be impracticable
called Babel' (Confusion), for to thetn which they purpose to do.
^
there Yahwe confused the speech C^*) So Yahwe scattered them over
of the whole earth the face of the whole earth. [?There-
fore the name of the tower was
called 'Piz' (Dispersion), for] {^^)
from the7ice Yahwe dispersed them
over the face of the whole earth.
2 24 THE TOWER OF BABEL (j)
It is extremely difficult to arrive at a final verdict on the soundness

of this acute analysis but on the whole it justifies itself by the readiness
;
with which the various motives assort themselves in two parallel series.
Its weak is no doubt the awkward duplicate (^*
point ^^) with which II
B Gu.'s bold conjecture that between the two there was an

closes.
etymological play on the name of the tower (ys or ps) certainly
removes the objection but the omission of so important an item of the
;
tradition is itself a easily accounted for.* Against this,

thing- not
however, we have to set the following considerations the absence of :
demonstrable lacunae in A, and their infrequency even in B the facts ;
that only a single phrase (i TyriTix in v.'') requires to be deleted as

redactional, and there is only one transposition (^^) and the facility ;
with which nearly all the numerous doublets (^^ ^^ ^*V 4b ^-^,^
(5^ y
II ; II
.
8a+9b^ ^.^^^ ^^g definitely assigned to the one recension

m-14 H) ^*a, /3 6ayb 9»
; II
; i|
or the other. In particular, it resolves the difficulty presented by the

twofdld descent of Yahwe in " and ', from which far-reaching critical
consequences had already been deduced (see the notes). There are
perhaps some points of style, and some general differences of conception
between the two strata, which go to confirm the hypothesis but these ;
also may be reserved for the notes.
The section, whether simple or composite, is independent of the

Ethnographic Table of ch. 10, and is indeed fundamentally irreconcil-
able with it. There the origin of peoples is conceived as the result of
the natural increase and partition of the family, and variety of speech
as its inevitable concomitant (cf. cnwhh, etc., in P, lo''- ^^). Here, on ^'^-
the contrary, the division is caused by a sudden interposition of Yahwe ;
and it is almost impossible to think that either a confusion of tongues or

a violent dispersion should follow genealogical lines of cleavage. It is
plausible, therefore, to assign the passage to that section of J (if there
be one) which has neither a Flood-tradition nor a Table of Nations (so
We. Bu. Sta. al.) although it must be said that the idea here is little
;
less at variance with the classification by professions of

^^^'^^ than with
ch. 10. The truth is that the inconsistency is not of such a kind as
would necessarily hinder a collector of traditions from putting the two in
historical sequence.
1-4. The Building of the City and the Tower.—

(Compare the translation given above.) I, 2. The expres-
I. 'n;i is not verbal pred. to |'1N.t'?3, but merely introduces the

circumstantial sent., as in 15" 42^5 etc. (Dav. § 141 and I^^). Such
a sent, is usually followed by njni, but see i Ki. 1320. It may certainly
be doubted if it could be followed by another '.Ti with inf. cl. (v.^) and ;
thismay be reckoned a point in favour of Gu.'s analysis. If there be —

any distinction between nQ\(; and d'"!?^, the former may refer to the
* In Jub. X. 26, the name of the tower, as distinct from the city, is
'*
Overthrow " (/caracrT/Jo^^).
— ;
XI. 1-3 2 25
sion suggests that in A mankind is already spread far and

wide over the earth, though forming one great nation (DV,
v.^), united by a common language. In B, on the other
hand, it is still a body of nomads, moving all together in
search of a habitation (v.^; cf. '^7?'? ^'?'?» ^'^)' — broke up from
the East\ v.i. —a plain] the Euphrates-Tigris valley ; where
Babylon Kccrai Iv TrcSto) /xiydXio (Her. i. 178). Ike land of
Shinar\ see on lo^'^. —3a. With great naivete, the (city-)
legend describes first the invention of bricks, and then (v.*)
as an afterthought the project of building with them. The

bilingual Babylonian account of creation (see p. 47 above)
speaks of a time when no brick was laid, no brick-mould
**
(fialbantu)formed": see KIB^ vi. i, 38 f., 360. 3b shows —

that the legend has taken shape amongst a people familiar
with stone-masonry. Comp. the construction of the walls
of Babylon as described by Her. (i. 179).* The accuracy
pronunciation and the latter to the vocabulary (Di.), or (Gu.) 'v to

language as a whole, and 'i to its individual elements. Q'^riN Dl?'^] —
* a single
set of vocables'; (& (fxavr] fxLa ( + 7raa-tj' = D^p^, as v.^). Else-
where (27*^ 292° [with D'p;]) DnnN means single in the sense of few * ' *
'
in Ezk. 37^' the text is uncertain (see Co.). On the juxtaposition of —

subj. and pred. in the nom. sent., see Dav. § 29 (e). 2. Dnj^p oyp^?] —
rendered as above b)' (B'H&W^' Nearly all moderns prefer 'as they
wandered in the east' or 'eastward^; justifying the translation by
13^^, which is the only place where DipD means eastward with a vb. of *
'
motion. That 'pD never means from the east is at least a hazardous
*
'
assertion in view of Is. 2^ 9^^ yoj (cf. Ass. nisil, 'remove,' 'depart,'
etc.) is a nomadic term, meaning 'pluck up [tent-pegs]' (Is. 33^*^);
hence 'break up the camp' or 'start on a journey' (Gn. 33^2 ^^s. 16.21
37" etc.) and, with the possible exception of Jer. 31^ (but not
;
Gn. 12^), there is no case where this primary idea is lost sight of.
Being essentially a vb. of departure, it is more naturally followed by
a determination of the starting-point than of the direction or the goal
(but see 33") ; and there is no difficulty whatever in the assumption
that the cradle of the race was further E than Babylonia (see 2^ and ;
cf. and n. 43).— ni;i?3] (Syr. ]AlA2), Ar. bak'at)

Sta. Ak. Red. 246,
in usage, a wide, open valley, or plain (Dt. 34^ Zech. 12^-^, Is. 40^
etc.). The derivation from ^J yp^, 'split,' is questioned by Barth
{ES, 2), is
38I8, Ex. i^^^ (all
—
probable nevertheless. 3. ri-2.rf\ impve. of ^J 3.T, used
but
interjectionally (G-K.
§ 69 o), as in w."*- J), is given
"'•
by Gu. as a stylistic mark of the recension A (J*?). Contr. the
* Cf. Jos. c. Ap. i. 139, 149 ; Diod. ii. 9; Pliny, HN, xxxv. 51.
15
—
226 THE TOWER OF BABEL (j)
of the notice is confirmed by the excavated remains of Bab.
houses and temples {A TLO^, 279) 4. Wi^k its top reaching —

to heaven] The expression is not hyperbolical (as Dt. i^^),
but represents the serious purpose of the builders to raise

their work to the height of the dwelling-place of the gods
(/ub. X. 19, etc.).
The most conspicuous feature of a Bab. sanctuary was its zikkuraf,

—a huge pyramidal tower rising-, often in 7 terraces, from the centre
of the temple-area, and crowned with a shrine at the top (Her. i.
181 f. : see Jast. RBA,
These structures appear to have
615-22).
embodied a half-cosmical, symbolism the 7 stories
half-religious :
represented the 7 planetary deities as mediators between heaven and

earth the ascent of the tower was a meritorious approach to the
;
gods and the summit was regarded as the entrance to heaven

;
{KA r^ 616 f. A TLG^y 52 f., 281 f. ). Hence it is probably something more

;
than mere hyperbole when it is said of these zikkurats that the top was
made to reach heaven (see p. 228 f. below) and, on the other hand, the
;
resemblance between the language of the inscrs. and that of Genesis

is too striking to be dismissed as accidental. That the tower of
Gn. n is a Bab. zikkurat is obvious on every ground and we may ;
readily suppose that a faint echo of the religious ideas just spoken of
ispreserved in the legend although to the purer faith of the Hebrews
;
it savoured only of human pride and presumption. The idea of —

storming heaven and making war on the gods, which is suggested
by some late forms of the legend (cf. Hom. Od. xi. 313 ff.), is no doubt
foreign to the passage.
4b. Lest we disperse] The tower was to be at once a

symbol of the unity of the race, and a centre and rallying-
point, visible all over the earth (lEz.). The idea is missed
by fflrU and %\ which render * ere we be dispersed.'
verbal 30^ (both E), 47^', and pi. (nn) 47^^, Dt. i" 32*,
use 29^^
Jos. iS*. On
the whole, the two uses are characteristic of J and E
respectively ; see Holz. Ei?il. 98 f. D'j?^ •"'ilr^] Ex. 5'- ^^. So in Ass.
labdnu lihittu {KIBy ii. 48, etc. ), although libittu is used only of the
wwburned, sun-dried brick. See No. ZDMG, xxxvi. 181 ; Hoffmann,
ZATW,n. 70.— nsi^^Jdat. ofproduct(Di.);'B'=*burntmass' (cf. Dt. 29^2,
Jer. si25)._nDn (1410, Ex. 2^)] the native Heb. name for bitumen (see on
6^^). —nph] (note the play on words) is strictly clay,' used in Palestine as
'
mortar.— 4. D\p^-5 ityxn)] 5 of contact, as in ? j;:: (De.).— db' niff^jji] acquire — *
lasting renown ; cf. 2 Sa. 8^^, Jer. 32"'^, Neh, 9'^

' The suggestion that
Dt?' here has the sense of 'monument,' though defended by De. Bud.
i'^^g'- 375^)> al. (cf Sieg.-St. s.v.), has no sufficient justification in usage.
In Is. 55^3 565 (cf. 2 Sa. iS^^), as well as the amended text of 2 Sa 8^^
—
XI. 4-9 227
5-9- Yahwe's Interposition.— The turning-point in the

development of the story occurs at vv.^- ^, where the descent
of Yahwe is twice mentioned, in a way which shows some
discontinuity of narration. — On heaven as the dwelling-
place of Yahwe, cf. 2812'., Ex. 1911-20 3^6 24W j jî.
22i»,
2 Ki. 2II; and with v.^ cf. iSî, Ex. f.
On
the assumption of the unity of the passagfe, the conclusion of
Sta. 274 ff. ) seems unavoidable : that a highly dramatic
(Ak. Red.
polytheistic recension has here been toned down by the omission of
some of its most characteristic incidents. In v." the name Yahwe
has been substituted for that of some envoy of the gods sent down to
inspect the latest human enterprise v.^ is his report to the heavenly
;
council on his return and v.' the plan of action he recommends to

;
his fellow immortals. The main objection to this ingenious solution is

that it almost necessarily, a process of conscious literary
involves,
manipulation, such as no Heb. writer is likely to have bestowed on a
document so saturated with pagan theology as the supposed Bab.
original must have been. It is more natural to believe that the
elimination of polytheistic representations was effected in the course of
oral transmission, through the spontaneous action of the Hebrew mind
controlled by its spiritual faith. — On Gu.'s theory the difficulty disappears.
6. This is hut the beginnings etc.] The reference is not
merely to the completion of the tower, but to other enter-

prises which might be undertaken in the future. 9. Babel] —
dSi rightly ^vyXâ-L^; v.i,
(see Dri. Sam. 217 f.), the ordinary sense suffices. — ps}] the word, ace.
to Gu., is distinctive of the recension B: cf. w.^'''. — 6. 'iJi niiK Dy jn]
incomplete interjectional sent. (G-K. § 147 i). niiJ'i;;^ oVnn ni] lit. 'this —
is their beginning to act.' On the pointing 'nn, see G-K. § 67 7y.
^Di;— n;f3! n*?] imitated in Jb. 42^.— isa] lit. b^Jnaccessible (cf. Is. 22^",
*
'
Jer. 51'*'); hence 'impracticable.' —

1D|;] coiiitr. for lai; (G-K. %6'jdd). —
7. 'iJi m-u] (& retains the pi. in spite of the alleged reading in
Mechilta rh-y^ mnK (see p. 14 above).— nj'a^] (see last note) fr. S^3 : ^
= 'mix' (not 'divide,' as S [^t Nf^lJ]).— t^V ib^k] G-K. § 165J.— yce?]
= understand': 4223, Dt. 28^ Is. 33", Jer. 5" etc.— 8. It is perhaps
*
better, if a distinction of sources is recognised, to point iV^n:i (juss. of

purpose: G-K. § 109/), continuing the direct address of '^— ryn]
*sx pr. nx, and (with ffi) adds SiJD-rnNi. 9. Nnp] —
one called (G-K. § 144 d).'
'
— Vn?] 'mixture' or 'confusion.' The name is obviously treated as a

contraction from Sa^S, a form not found in Heb., but occurring in
Aram. (cf. % v.^ and W—
vP) and Arab. On the Bab. etymology of
the name, see 10^".— 9b. m.T] © + 6 Beb^.
Origin and Diffusion of the Legends,
I. The double legenda product of naive reflexion on such facts

is
of experience as the disunity of mankind, its want of a common
language, and its consequent inability to bend its united energies to

the accomplishment of some enduring memorial of human greatness.
The contrast between this condition of things and the ideal unity of
the race at its origin haunted the mind with a sense of fate and dis-
comfiture, and prompted the questions, When, and where, and for
what reason, was this doom imposed on men ? The answer naturally
assumed the legendary form, the concrete features of the representation
being supplied by two vivid impressions produced by the achievements
of civilisation in its most ancient centre in Babylonia. On one hand
the city of Babylon itself, with its mixture of languages, its cosmo-
politan population, and its proud boast of antiquity, suggested the
idea that here was the very fountainhead of the confusion of tongues ;
and this idea, wrapped up in a popular etymology of the name of the

city, formed the nucleus of the first of the two legends contained in
the passage. On some ruined or un-
the other hand, the spectacle of
finished by a vast expenditure of human
Temple-tower {zikkurat), built
toil, and reported to symbolise the ascent to heaven (p. 226), appealed
to the imagination of the nomads as a god-defying work, obviously

intended to serve as a landmark and rallying-point for the whole human
race. In each case mankind had measured its strength against the
decree of the gods above and the gods had taken their revenge by
;
reducing mankind to the condition of impotent disunion in which it

now is.
Itevident that ideas of this order did not emanate from the
is
of Babylonia.
official religion They originated rather in the unsophisti-
cated reasoning of nomadic Semites who had penetrated into the
country, and formed their own notions about the wonders they beheld
there: the etymology of the name Babel { = Balbel) suggests an
Aramaean origin (Ch. Gu.). The stories travelled from land to land,
till they reached Israel, where, divested of their cruder polytheistic
elements, they became the vehicle of an impressive lesson on the folly
of human pride, and the supremacy of Yahwe in the affairs of men.
It is of quite secondary interest to determine which of the numerous
Babylonian zikkurats gave rise to the legend of the Dispersion. The
most famous of these edifices were those of E-sagil, the temple of Mar-
duk in Babylon,* and of E-zida, the temple of Nebo at Borsippa on the
opposite bank of the river (see Tiele, ZA, ii. 179-190). The former
bore the (.Sumerian) name E-temen-an-ki ( = * house of the foundations of
heaven and earth '). It was restored by Nabo-polassar, who says that
before him it had become "dilapidated and ruined," and that he was
commanded by Marduk to "lay its foundations firm in the breast of the
underworld, and make its top equal to heaven " {KIB, iii. 2. 5). The
On its recently discovered site, see Langdon, Expos. ^ 1909, ii.
p. 9iflF
flF.
XI. 1-9 229
latter expression recurs in an inscr. of Nebuchadnezzar {BA, iii. 548)
with reference to the same zikkuraty and is thought by Gu. (^ 86) to
have been characteristic of E-temen-an-ki but that is doubtful, since
;
similar language is used by Tiglath-pileser i. of the towers of the

temple of Anu and Ramman, which had been allowed to fall gradually
into disrepair for 641 years before his time {KIBy i. 43). The zikkurat
of E-zida was called E-ur~imin-an-ki (* house of the seven stages (?) of
heaven and earth ') ; its restorer Nebuchadnezzar tells us, in an inscr.
found at its four corners, that it had been built by a former king, and
raised to a height of 42 cubits its top, however, had not been set up,
;
and it had fallen into disrepair {KIB, iii. 2. 53, 55). The temple of
—
Borsippa is entombed in Birs NhnrHd a huge ruined mound still rising
153 feet above the plain (see Hil. EBL^ 13, 30 f.)— which local (and
Jewish) tradition identifies with the tower of Gn. 11. This view has
been accepted by many modern scholars (see EB, i. 412), by others
it is rejected in favour of E-temen-an-ki, chiefly because E-zida was not
in but only near Babylon. But if the two narratives are separated,
there is nothing to connect the tower specially with the city of Babylon ;
and it would seem to be mainly a question which of the two was the
more imposing ruin at the time when the legend originated. It is pos-
sible that neither was meant. At Uru (Ur of the Chaldees) there was
a smaller zikkurat (about 70 feet high) of the moon-god Sin, dating
from the time of Ur-bau (c. 2700 B.C.) and his son Dungi, which Nabu-
"
na'id tells us he rebuilt on the old foundation ** with asphalt and bricks
{KIBy iii. 2. 95; EBL, 173 ff.). The notice is interesting, because,
according to one tradition, which is no doubt ancient, though it cannot
be proved to be Yahwistic, this city was the starting-point of the Hebrew
migration (see below, p. 239). If it was believed that the ancestors of
the Hebrews came from Ur, it may very well have been the zikkurat
of that place which figured in their tradition as the Tower of the
Dispersion.
2. In regard to its religious content^ the narrative occupies the same
standpoint as ^'^- ^2 and 6^"^ Its central idea is the effort of the restless,
scheming, soaring human mind to transcend its divinely appointed
limitations: it "emphasises Yahwe's supremacy over the world; it
teaches how the self-exaltation of man is checked by God and it shows
;
how the distribution of mankind into nations, and diversity of language,

are elements in His providential plan for the development and progress
of humanity " (Dri.). The pagan notion of the envy of the gods, their —
fear lest human greatness should subvert the order of the world, no —
doubt emerges in a more pronounced form than in any other passage.
Yet the essential conception is not mere paganism, but finds an obvious
point of contact in one aspect of the prophetic theology see Is. 2^^'".
:
To say that the narrative is totally devoid of religious significance for

us is therefore to depreciate the value for modern life of the OT
thought
of God, as well as to evince a lack of sympathy with one of the pro-
foundest instincts of early religion. Crude in form as the legend is, it
—
embodies a truth of permanent validity the futility and emptiness of
human effort divorced from the acknowledgment and service of God :
;
hsec perpetua mundi dementia est, negflecto coelo immortalitatem

quaerere in terra, ubi nihil est non caducum et evanidum (Calv.).
3. Parallels. — No
Babylonian version of the story has been dis-
covered and for the reason given above (p. 226) it is extremely unlikely
;
that anything resembling the biblical form of it will ever be found

there.* In Greek mythology there are dim traces of a legend ascribing
the diversities of language to an act of the gods, whether as a punish-
ment on the creatures for demanding the gift of immortality (Philo,
De Conf. ling.), or without ethical motive, as in the 143rd fable of
Hyginus.f But while these myths are no doubt independent of Jewish
influence, their resemblance to the Genesis narrative is too slight to
suggest a common origin. It is only in the literature of the Hellenistic
period that we find real parallels to the story of the Tower of Babel
and these agree so closely with the biblical account that it is extremely
doubtful if they embody any separate tradition. J The difference to
which most importance is attached is naturally the polytheistic phrase-
ology ('the gods') employed by some of the writers named (Polyhistor,
Abyd.) but the polytheism is only in the language, and is probably
;
nothing more than conscious or unconscious Hellenising of the scriptural

narrative. —
Other differences such as the identification of the tower-
builders with the race of giants (the Nephilim of 6* ?), and the destruc-
—
tion of the tower by a storm are easily explicable as accretions to the
legend of Genesis. § The remarkable Mexican legend of the pyramid
of Cholula, cited by Jeremias from von Humboldt, has a special in- ||
terest on account of the unmistakable resemblance between the Mexican

pyramids and the Babylonian zikkurats. If this fact could be accepted
* The fragment (K 3657) translated in Smith-Sayce, Chald. Gen.

163 ff. (cf. HCM^f i53f-)> a^ndsupposed to contain obscure allusions to
the building of a tower in Babylon, its overthrow by a god during the
night, and a confusion of speech, has since been shown to contain nothing
of the sort: see King, Creation Tablets, i. 2i9f. Je. ATLO^, 286. ;
t
**
Sed postquam Mercurius sermones hominum interpretatus est
... id est nationes distribuit, turn discordia inter mortales esse coepit,
quod Jovi placitutn non est."
X Cf. Orac. Sibyll. iii. 98 ff. (Kautzsch, Psexidepigraphen, 187); Alex-

ander Polyhistor (Eus. Chron. i. 23 [ed. Schoene]) ; Abydenus {ib. i. 33) ;
Jos. Ant. i. 118; EupolemDs (Eus. Prcep. Ev. ix. 17); and Book of
Jub. X. 18-27. The lines of the Sibyl (iii. 99 f.) may be quoted as a
typical example of this class of legends :
6fi6<f)0)voi 5' ^(rav dvavres

Kal poiXoPT dva^rjvai els ovpavbv aarepbevra.
avrlKO, 8' dddvaros /JLcydX-qv iTidrjKev dvdfKtjv
we{>fia<xiv' ai/rdp îreLT &ve/JLOi. fxdyav {jxj/odi. irOpyop
Pi\l/av, Kal BvrjToiaip iv dW'ffkois ipiv Sjpaav
ToCveKd Toi Ba^vXutva ^porol irdXei oCvofx idevTO.
So Gu.2 88 f.
§ On the other side, cf. Gruppe, Griechische Culte und
Mythen, i. 677 ff. Sta. Ak. Red. 277 f.
; Je. ;
A TLO^, 383 ff.
II
Vues des Cordilleres (Paris, 18 10), 24, 32 ff.
— —;
XI. lo 231
as proof of direct Babylonian influence, then no doubt the question of

a Babylonian origin of the legend and its transmission through non-
biblical channels would assume a new complexion. But the inference,
however tempting, is not quite certain.
XI. 10-26. The Genealogy of Shem (P).
Another section of the Tdledoih, spanning the interval

between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. It is the
most carefully planned of P's genealogies next to ch. 5
with which it agrees in form, except that in MT the frame-
work is lightened by omitting the total duration of each
patriarch's life. In juu. this is consistently supplied ; while
ffi merely adds to MT the statement koX a-n-eOaviv. The
number of generations in MT is 9, but in ^ 10, corre-
sponding with ch. 5. Few of the names can be plausibly
identified; these few are mostly geographical, and point
on the whole to NW Mesopotamia as the original home of
the Hebrew race.
In aSc the number 10 is made up by the addition of K^nan between

ArpakSad and Shelah (so lo^^). That this is a secondary alteration
is almost certain, because (a) it is wanting in i Ch. i^^- ^* dSc (b) K^nan
;
already occurs in the former genealogy (5*^*) and (r) the figures
;
simply duplicate those of Shelah. It has been proposed to count Noah

as the first name (Bu. 412 f.), or Abraham as the 10th (Tu. De.); but
neither expedient brings about the desired formal correspondence be-
tween thel ists of ch. 5 and 1 1^"^' An indication of the artificial character
of these genealogies is found in the repetition of the name Nah&r, once
as the father, and again as the son, of Tera^ (see Bosse, Chron.
Systeme^ 7 ff.). It is not improbable that here, as in ch. 5 (correspond-
ing with 4^'')> P has worked up an earlier Yahwistic genealogy, of
which a fragment may have been preserved in w.^"^". We. {Comp.^ 9,
Prol.^ 313) has conjectured that it consisted of the 7 names left of P's
list when ArpakSad and Shelah (see on lo^^* ^) and the first Nah6r are
omitted (Abraham counting as the 7th). But there is no proof that the
Yahwistic genealogy lying behind ch. 5 was 7-membered ; and J's
parallel to nio^- could not in any case be the continuation of 4^^*22.
10. ^?'?9^^<] see on 10^. He is here obviously the oldest son of Shem ;'
which does not necessarily involve a contradiction with ch. 10, the
arrangement there being dictated by geographical considerations.
Hommel {AA, 222^), maintaining his theory that Arp. = Ur-KasdJm,
comes to the absurd conclusion that in the original list it was not the
name of Shem's son, but of his birthplace * Shem from Arpakshad
: ' !
Sîgn -inK Q:njv'] The discrepancy between this statement and the chron-
— — ;
232 GENEALOGY OF SHEM (p)
ology of 5^^ 7" 9^^** is not to be g-ot rid of either by wire-drawn arith-
metical calculations (Ra. al.), or by the assumption that in the other
passages round numbers are used (Tu. De.). The clause is evidently
a gloss, introduced apparently for the purpose of making the birth of
ArpakSad, rather than the Flood, the commencement of a new era.
It fits in admirably with the scheme of the B. of Jub., which gives an
integral number of year-weeks from the Creation to the birth of Arp.,

and from the latter event to the birth of Abraham (see p. 234 below).
12. n^B* (SaXa)] probably the same word which forms a component of
nSfinp (s^^Ôj ^"^ therefore originally a divine name. This need not
exclude a tribal or geographical sense, the name of a deity being fre-
quently transferred to his worshippers or their territory. A place Salah
or Salah in Mesopotamia is instanced by Knobel (Di.). Others regard
it as a descriptive name = offshoot or dismissal but very improb-
* *
' ' ;
ably. 1^. lay] see on lo^^ 16. J.^?] lo^'. —

Hommel {I.e.) combines the
two names and takes the compound as a notice of Shelah's birthplace :
'Shelah from Eber-peleg' = Eber-hannahar, the region of the lower W

Euphrates (see pp. 218, 220 above). — 18. lyi ('Pa7av)] unknown ; certainly
(Edessa). possibly abbreviated from Ex. 2^^

not •-iOl5o I
It is i\<\]n (36*,
etc. : so Homm.) ; and Mez considers it a divine name. An Aramaean

tribe Ruua is frequently mentioned in Assyr. inscrs. as dwellers on the
banks of the Euphrates and Tigris, in or near Babylonia (Del. Par.
—
238 ff.). 20. Jn"f (Sepovx)] 3. well-known city and district about half-way
between Carchemish and Harran, mentioned by Syr. and Arab, writers
under the name Sarug. The name {Sarugi) also occurs several times
in the census of the district round Harran (7th cent. B.C.), published by
Johns under the title of An Assyrian Domesday Book see pp. 29, 30, :
43, 48, 68. —22.

(Nax^p)] is in J the brother of Abraham (22^ ; cf.
nina
Jos. 242) in P he is both the grandfather and the brother (ii^S).

; The
name must have been that of an important Aramaean tribe settled in or
around Harran (27**^ 28^*^ 29^). Johns compares the place-name Til-
Nahiri in the neighbourhood of Sarug-i also the personal names Nafiirt ;
and Nahardu found in Assyrian Deeds {I.e. 71 Ass. Deeds iii. 127 cf. ; ^ ;
KAT^, 477 f-)- As a divine name Naxa/) is mentioned along with other
Aramaean deities on a Greek inscription from Carthage {KA 7^, 477)
and Jen. {Â, xi. 300) has called attention to the theophorous name
jj,^ ,«^V in the Doctrine of Addai,' as possibly a corruption of
,
'
j.j.,»j ^«~^ V .
—24. n"]n (Ga/ipa)] is instanced by Rob. Sm.* as a totem
clan-name ;
\k^hL{?) being the Syr. and turAhU the Ass. word for 'wild
goat.' Similarly Del. {Prol. 80), who also refers tentatively to Til-sa-
turdhi, the Mesopotamian town in the neighbourhood of
name of a
Ilarran. Knobel compares a place Tharrana^ S of Edessa (Di.); Jen.
{ZA^ vi. 70; Hittiter und Armenier^ 150 ff. [esp. 154]) is inclined to
identify Terah with the Hittite and N Syrian god (or goddess) TarTju,
TapKo, etc. (cf. KAT^, 484).—26. <S reads 75 instead of 70.
* JirM\ 220 (afterwards abandoned). Cf. Noldeke, ZDMG, xl.
167 f. : "sicher unmoglich."

:
XI. 12-26 233

The Chronology. — Thefollowing Table shows the variations of the
three chief recensions (MT, ux and
CK), tog-ether with the chronology of
the Book of Jubilees, which for this period parts company with the
Sam., and follows a system peculiar to itself (see p. 134 fF. above)
— :
234 GENEALOGY OF SHEM (p)
gives a period of 187 year-weeks from the Creation to the birth of

Arp., followed by another of 81 (567^7) to the birth of Abraham. We
observe further that the earlier period embraces 1 1 generations with an
average of exactly 17 year-weeks, and the later 9 generations with an
average of exactly 9 i.e., as nearly as possible one-half: the author ac-
:
cordingly must have proceeded on the theory that after the Flood the age
of paternity suddenly dropped to one-half of what it had formerly been.
[It is possible that the key to the various systems has been discovered
by A. Bosse, whose paper * became known to me only while these sheets
were passing through the press. His main results are as follows
(1) In MT he finds two distinct chronological systems, (a) One reckons
by generations of 40 years, its termini being the birth of Shem and
the end of the Exile. In the Shemite table, Terah is excluded entirely,
and the two years between the Flood and the birth of Arp. are ignored.
This gives from the birth of Shem to that of Abraham 320 (8 x 40)
:
years; thence to b. of Jacob 160(4x40); to Exodus 560 (14x40); to

founding of Temple 480 (12x40); to end of Exile 480: in all 2000
(50 X 40). This system is, of course, later than the Exile but Bo. con-
;
cedes the probability that its middle section, with 1200 (30x40) years
from the b. of Abr. to the founding of the Temple, may be of earlier
origin. {b) The other scheme, with which we are more immediately
concerned, operates with a Great Month of 260 years (260 = the number
of weeks in a five-years* lustrum). Its period is a Great Year from the
Creation to the dedication of the Temple, and its reckoning includes
Terah in the Shemite table, but excludes the 2 years of Arpak§ad.
This gives 1556 years to b. of Shem + 390 (b. of Abr.) + 75 (migration
of Abr.) + 215 (descent to Egypt) + 430 (Exodus) + 480 (founding of
Temple) + 20 (dedication of do.) = 3166. Now 3166 = 12 x 260 -f 46.
The odd 46 years are thus accounted for the chronologist was
:
accustomed to the Egyptian reckoning by months of 30 days, and

a solar year of 365^ days, requiring the interposition of 5J days each
year ; and the 46 years are the equivalent of these 5J days in
the system here followed. (For, if 30 days = 260 years, then ^\ days
5JX260 = 21x26
^=
7x13 T-u c i-i-' J r xu-
= ^^ =-
2
45i [say 46] years.) The first third of this
N i.
30 4 3 -"^
Great Year ends with the b. of Noah 1056 = 4 x 260+16 (^ of 46). The
second third nearly coincides with the b. of Jacob but here there
;
is a discrepancy of 5 years, which Bo. accounts for by the assumption

that the figure of the older reckoning by generations has in the case of
—
Jacob been allowed to remain in the text. (2) ffi reckons with a Great
Month of 355 years (the number of days in the Ulnar year), and a Great
Year of 12 x 355 = 4260 years from the Creation to the founding of the
Temple, made up as follows: 2142 + ii73t + 75 + 2 15 + 2 15 + 440^ = 4260.
* Die Chronologischen Systeme im AT und bet Josephus {MVAG,

1908, 2).
t Allowing a year for the Flood, and two years between it and the
b. of ArpakSad.
X See I Ki. 61 ((S).
XI. 27-32 235
Significant subdivisions cannot be traced. — (3) jot returns to the earlier
Heb. reckoning by generations, its terminus ad quern being the measur-
ing out of Gerizim, which, according to the Sam. Chronicle published
by Neubauer, took place 13 years after the Conquest of Canaan. Thus
we obtain 1207 + 1040 + 75 + 215 + 215 + 42 (desert wandering) * + 13
(measurement of Gerizim) = 2807 = 70 X 40 + 7.! —
(4) The Book of
Jubilees counts by Jubilee-periods of 49 years from the Creation to the
Conquest of Palestine 1309 + 567 + 75 + 459 (Exodus) + 40 (entrance to
:
Canaan) = 2450 = 50 x 49.]
XI. 2^-2,2.— The Genealogy of Terah (P and J).
The vv. are of mixed authorship and form, both in

;
P and J, an introduction to the Patriarchal History. In P

^7. 31. 32j^
the genealogical framework encloses a notice of the
migration of the Teraîtes from Ur-Kasdim to Harran, to
which 12*^-^ may be the immediate sequel. The insertion
from J (28-30J finds an equally suitable continuation in 12^*^-,
and is very probably the conclusion of J's lost Shemite
genealogy. The suppression of the preceding context of
J is peculiarly tantalising because of the uncertainty of the
tradition which makes Ur-Kasdim the home of the ancestors
of the Hebrews (see concluding note, p. 239)
—
On the analysis, cf. esp. Bu. Urg. 414 ff. Vv.^ and ^^ belong quite
obviously to P and ^^, from its diffuse style and close resemblance
;
to P's regular manner in recording the patriarchal migrations (12° 31^^

36*46^: see Hupf. Qu. 19 f.). may be confidently assigned to the same
source. ^^ presents nothing distinctive of either document but in ^sb;
m'?iD px is peculiar to JE (see the footnote on the v.). ^ is J because

presupposed in 22^**^* and its continuation (^^) brings as an additional
;
criterion the word niijy^ (cf. 25^^ 29^^), which is never used by P. The —
extract from J is supplementary to P, and it might be argued that at
least ^^ was necessary in the latter source to explain why Lot and not
Haran went with Terah. Bu. points out in answer (p. 420) that with
still greater urgency we desiderate an explanation of the fact that
Nahor was left behind if the one fact is left unexplained, so a fortiori
:
might the other.

The formula nnph nV><i does not occur again till 25^^ and it is very
;
widely held that in v." it stands as the heading of the section of P
* After Jos. 5" {(&).
t The odd 7 years still remain perplexing (see p. 136). One cannot
help surmising that the final 13 was originally intended to get rid of
it, though the textual data do not enable us now to bring out a round
number.
—
236 GENEALOGY OF TERAH (p, j)
dealing- with the life of Abraham. That is wholly improbable. It is

likely enough that a heading- (DmiN 'n '«) has been somewhere omitted
(so We. Bu. Ho. al.) but the truth is that from this point onwards
;
no consistent principle can be discovered in the use of the formula. The

hypothesis that an originally independent book of Toledoth has been
broken up and dislocated by the redaction, is as plausible a solution as
any that can be thought of. See, further, on 25^^
27. On the name Ahram^ see on 17^; on Nahor, v.22
above. Haran begat Lot] A statement to the same effect

must have been found in J (see 12**). Haran has no signifi-
cance in the tradition except as expressing- the relationship

of Lot, Milkah, and Yiskah within the Hebraic group.
That ]-\r\ is formed from pn {v.i.) by a softening of the initial guttural

(We. Pr.^ 313) is an improbable conjecture (see Bu. 443^). The name
occurs elsewhere only in '.th'? (Nu. 32^^ cf. D"^n"n'3, Jos. 13^')* in the :
tribe of Gad this has suggested the view that pn was the name of a
:
deity worshipped among the peoples represented by Lot (Mez cf. Wi. :
—
AOF, ii. 499). The name BiV is also etymologically obscure (? Ar. Idf
= cleave to '). A connexion with the Horite clan \'d'h in Gn. 36^"- ^' ^
'
is probable.
28. The premature death of Haran (which .became the

nucleus of some fantastic Jewish legends) took place in the
land of his nativity, i.e., according to the present text,
Ur of the Chaldees, where his grave was shown down to
the time of Josephus (Ant. i. 151 Eus. OS, 285, 50 ff.). ;
O'l'â Neh. 9': (& x^P^ '''^^ XaXdaiojv) is now almost

l^N (v.^^ 15',
S Babylonian city of Uru, whose
universally identified with the ancient
remains have been discovered in the mounds of 'el-Mukayj/ar, on the
right bank of the Euphrates, about 25 miles SE from Erech and 125
from Babylon (see Hilp. EBL, 172 ff.). The evidence for this view is
28. 'iS'Vy] is coram (© evioinov), rather than a?ite (U : so Tu.), or 'in
the lifetime of (^ ,.j_-LkkI}) cf. Nu. 3^: see ; and G-B. s.v. BDB
D'JS.— iFi-jViD px] so 24'' (J), 31^2 (E); cf. Jer. 22^<> 461", Ezk. 23^^ Ru. 2".
A commoner phrase in Pent, is 'iDi 'in, 12^ 24^31^32^^, Nu io^° (all J).
From the way
which the two expressions alternate, it is probable
in
that they are equivalent and since 'd alone certainly means kindred
;
'
'
(43^ [J], cf. Est. 2^°- 2" 8^), it is better to render land of one's parentage' '
than 'land in which one was born' [S here and 12^] (cf. Bu. 419^). P
has the word, but only in the sense of progeny (48^, Lv. 18^ [H]). '
'
* Though Wî. {A OF, ii. 499) contends that both names are corrup-
tions of D'mn.
—
XI. 27-30 237

very strong-. Uru is the only city of the name known from Assyri-
olog-y (although the addition of the g-en. DntJ'3 suggests that others were
known to the Israelites G-K. § 125 A) it was situated in the properly
: :
Chaldsean territory, was a city of great importance and vast antiquity,

and (like Harran, with which it is here connected) was a chief centre of
the worship of the moon-god Sin {KAT,"^ i29fF.). The only circumstance
that creates serious misgiving is that the prevalent tradition of Gen.
points to the NE as the direction whence the patriarchs migrated to
Canaan (see below) and this has led to attempts to find a northern
;
Ur connected probably with the Mesopotamian Chaldaeans of 22^^ (see

Kittel, Gesch. i. 163 ff.). Syrian tradition identifies it with Edessa
{Urhdi, Urfa). It is generally recognised, however, that these considera-
tions are insufficient to invalidate the arguments in favour of Uru,
D'"=)f 3] := Bab. KaMuy Ass. Kaldu (Xa\5-aioL), is the name of a group of
Semitic tribes, distinguished from the Arabs and Aramaeans, who are
found settled to the SE of Babylonia, round the shore of the Persian Gulf.
In the I ith cent, or earlier they are believed to have penetrated Babylonia,
at first as roving, pastoral nomads {KAT^, 22 ff".), but ultimately giving
their name to the country, and founding the dynasty of Nabopolassar.
— By the ancients Dn^D was rightly understood of Babylonia (Nikolaos
Damasc. in Jos. Ant i. 152 Eupolemos in Eus. Prcep. Ev. ix. 17
;
;
Jer. al.) but amongst the Jews n?N came to be regarded as an appella-
;
tive = fire {in igne Chaldceorum, which Jer. accepts, though he rejects
*
'
the legends that were spun out of the etymology). This is the germ of
the later Haggadic fables about the fire in which Haran met an
'
'
untimely fate, and the furnace into which Abraham was cast by order
of Nimrod (y«d. xii. 12-14; J^^- Qucest., ad loc. ST J, Ber. R. § 38, Ra.).
;
29. While we are told that Nahor's wife was his brother's
daughter, it is surprising" that nothing is said of the
parentage of Sarai. According to E (20^2^^ ghe was Abraham's
half-sister but this does not entitle us to suppose that
;
words expressing this relationship have been omitted from

the text of J (Ewald). It would seem, however, that
tradition represented marriage between near relations as

the rule among the Terahites (20^^ 24^^- 29^^).
With regard names, n^ seems to be an archaic form of

to the
n-i"^ .— 17^^), while ns/p means 'queen.'
'princess' (see on In Bab. the
relations are reversed, ifarra/w being the queen and Tnalkatuthe princess.
It cannot be a mere coincidence that these two names correspond
to two personages belonging to the pantheon of Harran, where Sarratu
was a title of the moon-goddess, the consort of Sin, and Malkatu a title
29. nKi] sing., according to G-K. § 146/—30. n-\j;iv] as 25^1 29^1

(J)
—
not in P (see 16'*). n^J »J^ i*?'- Only again as Kethib of Or. MSS in
;
2 Sa. 6^^. It is possibly here a scribal error, which eventually influenced

the Dther pass.
;
238 GENEALOGY OF TERAH (p, j)
of Istar, also worshipped there (Jen. ZA^ xi. 299 f. ; KAT^, 364 f.)*
It isneedless to say that these associations, if they existed, are forgotten
in the Hebrew legend. —
If, as is not improbable, the tradition contains
ethnographic reminiscences, v.^^' express (i) the dissolution of an older

tribal group, Haran (2) the survival of one of its subdivisions (Lot)
;
through the protection of a stronger tribe and (3) the absorption of ;
—
another (Milkah) in a kindred stock. Of n^P! nothing is known. The
Rabbinical fiction that she is Sarah under another name (implied in
Jos. Ant. i. 151 CJ, Jer. Ra. lEz. al.) is worthless. Ewald's conjecture
;
that she was the wife of Lot is plausible, but baseless.
31, 32. The migration from Ur-Kasdim to Canaan is
accomplished in two stages. Terah, as patriarchal head of

the family, conducts the expedition as far as Harran, where
he dies. The obvious implication is that after his death
the journey is resumed by Abram (12^); although ux alone
gives a chronology consistent with this view {y. supra),
Nahor, we are left to infer, remained behind in Ur-Kasdim
and in the subsequent narratives P (in opposition to J) seems
carefully to avoid any suggestion of a connexion between

Nahor and the city of Harran.
pn (with virtually doubled n cf. ffi Xappav Gr. Kd^pat Lat. Carree^
: ; ;
Charra ;Ass. Harrdnu Syr. and Arab. Harran) was an important

;
centre of the caravan trade in NW

Mesopotamia, 60 miles E of
Carchemish, situated near the Balil), 70 miles due N from its confluence
with the Euphrates. Though seldom mentioned in OT (12^ [P],
27^^ 28'" 29^ [J], 2 Ki. 19^^, Ezk. 27^^!), and now ruined, it was a city of
great antiquity, and retained its commercial importance in classical
and mediaeval times. The name in Ass. appears to be susceptible of
several interpretations —
'way,' 'caravan' (TA Tab.), 'joint-stock
enterprise (Del. Hdwb. s.v.y KAT^, 29^) any one of which might denote
' —
its commercially advantageous position at the parting of the route to
Damascus from the main highway between Nineveh and Carchemish.

Harran was also (along with Ur) a chief seat of the worship of Sin, who
had there a temple, E-ûl-}}ul, described by Nabuna'id as "from
remote days" a "dwelling of the joy of his (Sin's) heart" {KIB, iii. 2.
97), and who was known in NW
Asia as the "Lord of Harran"
(Zinjirli inscr. cf. Lidzbarski, Hb. 444, An.).
: See, further, Mez, Gesch.
d. St. ffarran Tomkins, Times of Abraham, 55 ff. etc. This double
;
connexion of Abraham with centres of lunar religion is the most
31. mSa] nV? (Syr. (Axn, Ar. kannat) means both 'spouse' and
*daughter-in-law '
: in Syr. and Ar. also '
sister-in-law,' —a fact adduced
by Rob. Sm. as a relic of Baal polyandry {KM^, 161, 209^). onK iMii'i] —
gives no sense. Read with iix<& {koL i^-fiyaycv a'jrovi) U, D^k KjfiM, or
Shy DJ?l< KX.O..— 32. nnn-'©;] (& + iv Xaf>pdv.
;
XI. 31, 32 239

plausible arg-ument advanced by those who hold the mythical view of
his fig-ure asan impersonation of the moon-god.
It will be observed that while both P and J (in the present text)
make Ur-KasdJm the starting-point of the Abrahamic migration, J has
no allusion to a journey from Ur to Harran. His language is perfectly
consistent either (a) with a march directly from Ur to Canaan, or (b)
with the view that the real starting-point was Harran, and that nixa
WiVD is here a gloss intended to harmonise J and P. Now, there is a
group of passages in J which, taken together, unmistakably imply
that Abraham was a native of Harran, and therefore started from
thence to seek the promised land. In 24^* '• ^"j the place of A.'s nativity
is Aram-Naharaim, and specially the city of Nahor
*
while a com-
'
;
parison with 27** 28^** 29* leaves no doubt that the city of Nah6r was
'
'
Harran. P, on the other hand, nowhere deviates from his theory of a

double migration with a halt at Harran and the persistency with
;
which he dissociates Laban and Rebecca from Nahor (252** 28^-'^^-) is a

proof that the omission of Nah6r from the party that left Ur was
intentional (Bu. 421 fF.). It is evident, then, that we have to do with a
divergence in the patriarchal tradition and the only uncertainty is
;
with regard to the precise point where it comes in. The theory of P,
though consistently maintained, is not natural for (i) all the antecedents
;
^ J, 10-20^ point to Mesopotamia as the home of the patriarchs; and

(2)
the twofold migration, first from Ur and then from Harran, has itself
the appearance of a compromise between two conflicting traditions.
The simplest solution would be to suppose that both the references to
Ur-Kasdlm in J (ii^* 15') are interpolations, and that P had another
tradition which he harmonised with that of J by the expedient just
mentioned (so We. Di. Gu. Dri. al.). Bu. holds that both traditions
were represented in different strata of J (J^ Harran, J^ Ur), and tries
to show that the latter is a probable concomitant of the Yahwistic
account of the Flood. In that he can hardly be said to be successful
and he is influenced by the consideration that apart from such a
discrepancy in his sources P could never have thought of the circuitous
route from Ur to Canaan by way of Harran. That argument has little
weight with those who are prepared to believe that P had other
traditions at his disposal than those we happen to know from J and E.*
In itself, the hypothesis of a dual tradition within the school of J is
perfectly reasonable ; but in this case, in spite of Bu.'s close reasoning,
it appears insufficiently supported by other indications. The view of

We. is on the whole the more acceptable.
* The suggestion has, of course, been made (Wi. A OF, i. 98 ff.

;
Paton, Syr. and Pal. 42) that E is the source of the Ur-Kasdim tradition :
but in view of Jos. 24^ that is not probable.

THE PATRIARCHAL HISTORY.
ABRAHAM.
Chs. XII-XXV. i8.
Critical Note. — In this section of Genesis the broad lines of demarca-

tion between J, E, and P are so clear that there is seldom a serious
diversity of opinion among- critics. The real difficulties of the analysis .
concern the composition of the Yahwistic narrative, and the relation oC

its component parts to E and P respectively. These questions have
been brought to the front by the commentary of Gu., who has made it
probable that the Yahwistic document contains two main strata, one
(J^) fixing- Abraham's residence at Hebron, and the other (J**) reg-arding^
him as a denizen of the Negeb.
I. The kernel of J^ is a cycle of legends in which the fortunes of
Abraham and Lot are interlinked : viz. 12^'^; 132.5-18. jg . 19I-28. i^30-38^
If these passages are read continuously, they form an orderly narrative,

tracing the march of Abraham and Lot from Harran through Shechem
to Bethel, where they separate thence Abraham proceeds to Hebron,
;
but is again brought into ideal contact with Lot by visits of angels to
each in turn this leads up to the salvation of Lot from the fate of
;
Sodom, his flight to the mountains, and the origin of the two peoples
supposed to be descended from him. In this sequence 12**- 13^ is (as will
be more fully shown later) an interruption. Earlier critics had attempted
to get rid of the discontinuity either by seeking a suitable connexion for
12^^- at a subsequent stage of J's narrative, or by treating it as a
redactional expansion. But neither expedient is satisfactory, and the

suggestion that it comes from a separate source is preferable on several
grounds. Now 12^^- is distinguished from J^, not only by the absence
of Lot, but by the implication that Abraham's home was in the Negeb,
and perhaps by a less idealised conception of the patriarch's character.
These characteristics reappear in ch. 16, which, as breaking the con-
nexion of ch. 18 with 13, is plausibly assigned to J*'. (To this source
Gu. also assigns the Yahwistic component of ch. 15; but that chapter
shows so many signs of later elaboration that it can hardly have
—
belonged to either of the primary sources.) After ch. 19, the hand of J
appears in the accounts of Isaac's birth (21^'''*) and Abraham's treaty
with Abimelech {21^-^^*): the latter is probably J'' (on account of the
Negeb), while the former shows slight discrepancies with the pre-
diction of ch. 18, which lead us (though with less confidence) to assign
240
XII.-XXV. i8 241
italso to J*>. With regard to ch. 24, it is impossible to say whether it
belongs to J*" or J^^ we assign it provisionally to the latter.* The bulk
:
of the Yahwistic material may therefore be disposed in two parallel ^^^

series as follows :
Jh. 12^"^*; 132-18*. igl-lC. 20-22a. 83b .

iq1-28 .
iq80-88 .
21*1-'*; 21^-^** ','24*4

J": i2»-i3i; x6;
The Yahwistic sections not yet dealt with are ch. 15* (see above);
and the two genealogies, 22^^'''^^ and 25^"', both inserted by a Yahwistic
editor from unknown sources. Other passages (13^^'^'^ 1317-19. 22b-33a
22^**"^^) which appear to have been added during the redaction (RJ or RJ^)
will be examined in special notes ad locc.
2. The hand of E is recognised in the following sections : 15*; 20;
21I-7*. 218-21 ;
2122-34*. 22I-19 (24*?). Gu. has pointed out that where
J and E run parallel to one another, E's affinites are always with
J^ and never with J^ (cf. the variants \2^' 20; 16 21^"^^; and the || ||
compositions in 21^"' and 2\'^'^'^). This, of course, might be merely a

consequence of the fact that E, like J^ makes the Negeb (Beersheba)
the scene of Abraham's history. But it is remarkable that iiajc h. 26 we
find unquestionable Yahwistic parallels to E and J**, with ^Bjkas hero
instead of Abraham. These are probably to be attributed ^Jlfie writer
whom we have called J'*, who thus succeeded in preser|J|ig the Negeb
traditions, while at the same time maintaining the theory that Abraham
was the patron of Hebron, and Isaac of Beersheba.
Putting all the indications together, we are led to jgtentative hypo-
thesis regarding the formation of the Abrahamic l^Kid, which has
some value for the clearing of our ideas, though it must be held with
great reserve. The tradition crystallised mainly at two great religious
centres, Beersheba and Hebron. The Beersheba nalratives took shape
in two recensions, a Yahwistic and an Elohistic, or which (it may be
*
Gu. analyses 24 into two narratives, assig ning one to each source.
The question is discussed in the Note, pp. 34o^PRvhere the opinion is
hazarded that the subordinate source may be Egjki which case the other
would naturally be J''.
^
+ It is interesting to compare this result with the analysis of the
Yahwistic portions of chs. i-i i (pp. 2-4). Ineach case J appears as a
complex document, formed by the amalgan^^bn of prior collections of
traditions ; and the question naturally arisdWv^hether any of the com-
ponent narratives can be traced from the one period into the other.
It is impossible to prove that this is the case but certain affinities of
;
thought and expression suggest that J^ in the biography of Abraham

may be the continuation of J® in the primitive history. Both use the
phrase 'call by the name of Yahwe (4'^^ 12^ [13^]. [but cf. 21^ (J**)]);
'
and the optimistic religious outlook expressed in the blessing of Noah

is shared in a marked degree by the writer of JK
(gSSflf.)
Have we here
fragments of a work whose theme was the history of the Yahvve-
religion, from its commencement with Enosh to its establishment in the
leading sanctuaries of Palestine by Abraham and Isaac? See 12'
(Shechem), 128 (Bethel), 13I8 (Hebron), 26" (Beersheba).
16
242 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (j, p)
added) the second is ethically and religiously on a hig-her level than the
first. These were partly amalgamated, probably before the union of J**
^
W^^^"*^
^^ and J'' (see on ch. 26). The Hebron tradition was naturally indifferent
to the narratives which connected Abraham with the Negeb, or with
K** -' its sanctuary Beersheba hence the writer of J^, who attaches himself
;
"^
to this tradition, excludes the Beersheba stories from his biography of
"^ ^ Abraham, but finds a place for some of them in the history of Isaac.
16^'' 3. 15 21'
23 25*^'^^* ; 25^2*") consists mostly of a skeleton biography based on the

;
older documents, and presupposing a knowledge of them. The sole

raison ditre of such an outline is the chronological scheme into which
the various incidents are fitted : that it fills soThe gaps in the history
(birth of Ishmael, death of Abraham) is merely an accident of the

redaction. P's affinities are chiefly with J**, with whom he shares the
idea that Hebron was the permanent residence of Abraham. Of the
sections peculiar to P, ch. 17 is parallel to 15, and 25^^-" has probably
replaced a lost Yahwistic genealogy of Ishmael. Ch..23 stands alone
as presumably an instance where P has preserved an altogether in-
depend^j^Hadition.
Ch. i^^Hnnot with any show of reason be assigned to any of the
recognised sc^llces of the Pent., and has accordingly been omitted from
the above survey. The question of its origin is discussed on pp. 271 ff.
below.
Chs. XI^ÎII. — The migrations of Abram (J and P).
Leaving hi^home at the command of Yahwe, Abram

enters Canaan^sid erects altars at Shechem and Bethel
(i2^~^). From Bethel he migrates to the Negeb, and thence,
under stress of famine, to Egypt where by a false repre- ;
sentation he enric^s himself, but imperils his wife's honour

(12^-13^). Laden^Rth wealth, he returns to Bethel, where
an amicable separation from his nephew Lot leaves him in
sole possession of tl^j^romise of the land (13^"^^). Abram
journeys southward S|p settles in Hebron (^^).
Analysts. —The slender thread of P's narrative is represented by I2-***-

°
jê. lib i2aba.

note the date in iz***; the form of 12"*; vy\, v^y], 12"* 13';
jê jîs and see on the
r?3, jy^? pjx, 12' 13^2
person,'
* 12'' -,|3n
; ^^y^ . . >-sj}^^ .
vv. below. These fragments form a continuous epitome of the events

between the exodus from Harran and the parting of Abram and Lot.
With a slight and inherently plausible transposition (la^-"*^ Bu. p. 432) ;
they might pass for the immediate continuation of ii''^, if we can

suppose that the call of Abram was entirely omitted by P (see Gu. 231).
— The rest of the passage is Yahwistic throughout obs. the consistent :
use of m,T ; the reference to Paradise, 13^*^; the anticipation of ch. 19 in

jîo. 13,
and the following expressions: rvfiS^, 12^ ; 5 Ti.'^h 12^; nn??'^ Sa
—
XII. 1-3 243
12^^- 1' 138- '• ^^ i?3j;;3, 12''- ^^ 'y nrfrno, 12^^
•T?"3«,C, 12^ ; Hi n^n, Nj, ; ; ;
p-irn ^^?,
13^0." n. It falls naturally into three sections : (a) iz^'*''-
^'^
; (b) I2^<'-I3' 5
(c) 1^^'^-
'"*• i2b|3-i8
and I3''- ^ being redactional links (RJ) uniting- b
. j2»
to a on the one side and c on the other. The purely mechanical con-
nexion of b with a and c was first shown by We. (Comp.^ 24 f.).* The
removal of b restores the direct and natural sequence of c upon a, and
gets rid of the redactor's artificial theory of a double visit to Bethel with
a series of aimless wanderings between. In the main narrative Abram's
journey is continuously southward, from Shechem to Bethel (where the
separation from Lot takes place), and thence to his permanent abode in
Hebron. In the inserted episode (6), Abram simply moves down to
Egypt from his home in the Negeb and back again. As to the origin —
of 12^^"^°, see p. 251 below.
XII. 1-8. The journey to Canaan and the promise

of the Land. — I. The opening v. strikes a note peculiarly
characteristic of the story of Abram — the trial of faith.
There is intentional pathos in the lingering" description of
the things he is to leave : thy land^ thy kindred^ and thy
father^ s house and a corresponding significance in the
\
vagueness with which the goal is indicated to a land :
'which I 'mill show thee. Obedience under such conditions

marks Abram as the hero of faith, and the ideal of Hebrew
piety (Heb. ii^*-). —
2, 3. The blessings here promised express
the aspirations of the age in which the narrative originated,
and reveal the people's consciousness of its exceptional
destiny among the nations of the world. They breathe the
spirit of optimism which is on the whole characteristic of the
Yahwistic treatment of the national legends, as contrasted
with the primitive and cosmopolitan mythology of chs. 2-1 1,
whose sombre tone is only once (9^^*-) relieved by a similar

gleam of hope. and will make thy name great] It has
been noticed that the order in which the names of the
patriarchs emerge in the prophetic literature is the reverse
of that in Genesis, and that Abraham is first mentioned in
Ezk. 33^*. The inference has been drawn that the figure of
I. ?ih.^ (222 [Ej; cf. Ca. 2^»- ")] see G-K. § 1195.— On nnV^D (ffi
<riry7ej'eta) see ii'^. — Impve. expressing consequence (G-K.
2. no"j5 n:.m]
§ no z) is here questionable, because the preceding vbs. are simple
futures. The pointing as consec. pf. (•"';ni) was suggested by Giesebrecht
* So Di. Ho. Gu.

—
Abraham represents a late development of the patriarchal

legends We. ProL^ 317 f.). But from this promise we
(cf.
may fairly conclude that even in the pre-prophetic period

the name of Abraham was famous in Israel, and that in this
particular the religious ideas of the people are not fully
reflected in prophecy (i Ki. 18^^ has also to be considered).
—The antiquity of the name is now placed beyond doubt
by an archaeological discovery made by Erman in 1888, but
first published by Breasted in 1904. In the Karnak list
of places conquered by Sheshonk i., the contemporary of
Rehoboam, there is mentioned pa-hu-q-ru-a a-ha-ra-m = '
D")3N ^pn, 'Field of Abram.' It has not been identified;
but from its place in the list it must have been in the S of
Palestine (see Breasted, AJSL^ xxi. 35
f. and ; cf. Meyer,
INS^ 266).* and he thou a blessing (cf. Zee. 8^^)] Rather:
and it (the name) shall he a hlessing (point njn"i, i).!.) i.e. a *
name to bless by,' in the sense explained by 3^— 3b has

generally been rendered through thee shall all the families
of the earth he hlessed] i.e. the blessings of true religion
shall be mediated to the world through Abram and his
descendants (so all Vns. ; cf. Sir. 44^1, Ac. 3^^, Gal. 3^).
The better translation, however, is that of Ra., adopted by

most modern comm. : hy thee shall all . . . bless themselves]
the idea being that in invoking blessings on themselves or

others they will use such words as God make thee like *
Abram,' etc. (see 4820, Is. 65I6, Ps. 72" ; and the opposite,
{ATUche Schdtzung d. Goftesnamens, 15) see Gu. adv. 3. ?17?P9] singf.

; — ;
but the pi. of some MSS, jux^jF^ {'C'), is more probable cf. 2f^, Nu. ;
—
249. T]? 131331] Kal evXoyrjdrjo-ovTai iv (Tol, and so all Vns.
fflr The rendering
depends on the grammatical question whether the Niph. has pass, or
refl. sense. This form of the vb. does not occur except in the parallels
18I8 (with i3) and 28^^ (?iyni?i— ?i?). In 22^8 26" it is replaced by Hithp.,
which is, of course, refl., and must be translated 'bless themselves' ;
the renderings *feel themselves blessed' (Tu. KS. Str.), or 'wish them-
selves blessed' (De.) are doubtful compromises. These passages,
however, belong to secondary strata of J (as does also 18^^, and perhaps
28^^), and are not necessarily decisive of the sense of 12'. But it is
significant that the Pu. which is the proper pass, of Tlh is consistently
,
avoided and the presumption appears to be distinctly in favour of the

;
* See, further, pp. 292 f. below.

— — ^;
XII. 3-6 245
Jer. 29^). ** So the ancient mind expressed its admiration

of a man's prosperity " (Gu.). The clause is thus an expan-
sion of ^^ : the name of Abram will pass into a formula of
benediction, because he himself and his seed will be as it
were blessedness incarnate. The exegetical question is
discussed below. —4a. The mention of Lot (see on ii^^)
establishes a literary connexion with the Lot narratives of

chs. 13. 19. —5 is P's parallel to ** {v.t.)
; the last sentence
supplying an obvious gfap in J 's narrative. and they came
etc.]. This time (ct. 11^^) the goal is actually reached. On
the probable route from Harran to Canaan, see Dri. 146,
—
300 ff. 6, 7* Arrived at Shechem, Abram receives, through
a theophany, the first intimation that he has reached the
goal of his pilgrimage, and proceeds to take possession of
sense given in the text above. The idea is well expressed by Ra. :
113' 13 noiD nn Nnpon^' in i3n23i '?d p^ nmnxD Nnn un"? idin oin laiB-s inn
fiB'jDDi Dn£5N3 wnhti -p'tif" -£>nh '?NnB'' (Gn. 48^").
— 4. 1.^.'.!] -S ,*^V f^ ( = B'y!l),
adopted by Ba. — 5. The parallel to ^ in the distinctive form (see on 1 1^^)
and phraseology of P. The vb. V2i is peculiar to P (31^^ 36^ 46^) J
lyn-) is a word of the later language, found in P (7 1.), in Gn. 14 (5 t.) and
as a gloss in 15^*; in Ch. Ezr. Dn. (15 1.): see Ho. JSinL 347. It is
supposed to denote primarily riding beasts,* like Heb. vd"], Aram.
*
pi^j, n;^?"i, Ass. ruktiSu (Haupt, ffebratca, iii. no) ; then property in
general. vsi] in the sense of '
person ' is also practically confined to P
in Hex. (Ho. 345). — ibi;] = * acquired,' as Dt. 8", Jer. 17" etc.
31^,
The idea of proselytising' (^°J) is rightly characterised by Ra. as
Haggada. — lyJl yii}] ** ein fast sicheres Kennzeichen fiir P" (Ho. 340).
In JE }y33 appears never to be used in its geographical sense except in
the story of Joseph (42. 44-47. 50^) and Jos. 24^.— jyj?— ^xan.] ^l q^^^
probably from homoioteleuton. —
6. p^?^] so ^^, but ffi^- ^'•, read
nrixi' (13"). —
For n-iio, S and S> read Nipo. The convallem illustrem of
3J is an amalgamation of fir {Ty\v 8p0v tt}v v\I/7]\i^p [ohD ?]) and 'QL^ (nt5"D
miD=* plains of M.'); the latter is probably accounted for by aversion
to the idolatrous associations of the sacred tree. W^ has 'n"D 11m nB"D
on which see Levy, Chald. Wh. 33. The absence of the art (ct. nyaa
rrjien, Ju. 7') seems to show that the word is used as nom. pr. p'?N] unlike —
its Aram, equivalents (^ \ \ j^'x), which mean tree in general, is never
used generically, but always of particular (probably sacred) trees. In
the Vns. *oak' and 'terebinth' are used somewhat indiscriminately
(see V. Gall, CSt. 24 ff.) for four Heb. words: \h><, pVx, njix, n^N (only
Jos, 24^^). The theory has been advanced that the forms with ^ are
alone correct that they are derivatives from *?><, god,' and denote
; '
the land in the name of Yahwe by erecting altars for His

worship. It is, however, a singular fact, that in J there is
no record of actual sacrifice by the patriarchs on such altars :
see p. 1.
The orig-inal motive of this and similar legends is to explain the

sacredness of the principal centres of cultus by definite manifestations of
God to the patriarchs, or definite acts of worship on their part. The
rule is that the legitimacy of a sanctuary for Israel is established by a
theophany (Ex. 20^^ [E]). The historic truth is that the sanctuaries
were far older than the Hebrew immigration, and inherited their sanctity
from lower forms of religion. That fact appears in v.^ in the use of the
word Dipa, which has there the technical sense of 'sacred place,' as in
22* 28" I Sa. 7i"((5r r]yLaa/ji.4voLs), Jer. 7^^ (cf. Ar. makam).
35^ {(&), Ex. 3^,
—
Shechem is and most northerly of four sanctuaries the others
the first —
being Bethel, Hebron (J*^), and Beersheba (E, J^)— connected with the
name of Abraham. The name {Skmm, with pi. termination)* occurs in
an Eg. inscr. as early as the 12th dynasty. It was an important place in
the Tel- Amarna period (see Steuernagel, Einwanderung, 120 f. Knudtzon, ;
BAyiv. 127), and figures prominently in OT legend and history. On its

situation (the modern NdhdiZs) between Mts. Ebal and Gerizim, see
EB, iv. 4437 f. —The nnio \\W ( = * oracle-giving terebinth') was evidently
an ancient sacred tree from which oracles were obtained, and therefore
Besides Dt. 1^" (a difficult pass.,
a survival of primitive tree-worship. f 1
originally the *
sacred tree ' without distinction of species, t The pVx of
Gn. 358 is a palm in Ju. 4^ and d^'n (pi. of n^x?) (Ex. i^" etc.)
called
derived its name from 70 palm-trees. But though the Mass. tradition
may not be uniformly reliable, n^x and fiVx appear to be distinguished in
Hos. 4^^ Is. 6^^ (Di.) and the existence of a form \\S>h is confirmed by
;
alldnuy which is said to be an Ass. tree-name (G-B.^^ 36 b). It is
probable from Zee. ii^, Ezk. 27^ etc., that jiVx is the oak. With regard
to the other names no convincing theory can be formed, but a connexion
with •?« {tlu) is at best precarious.—6b is probably a gloss: cf. 137'*.
—7. -inti'i] txxtSiESb add "i*?.— v^'X nNiin] so 35^ (E).
* It is possible that this (dddb') is the oldest form in Heb. also since ;
(& often has the pi. Skt/*a (33^8 35*- = etc.).

t
**
Where a tree is connected with a well it was probably the
original object of honour" (Curtiss, Prim. Se?n. Rel.'^ 91). On the
obtaining of oracles from trees, see Rob. Sm. RS^, 195. Comp. Ju. 4^
2 Sa. 52^ and the oak of Zeus at Dodona.— Duhm's brilliant generali-
;
sation {Isaiah^, 13 f.), that Abraham was traditionally associated with

sacred trees, Isaac and Ishmael with sacred wells, and Jacob with
sacred stones, though not literally accurate, has sufficient truth to be
suggestive and may possibly correspond to some vague impression of
;
the popular mind in Israel.

+ We. Pr.^ 234 Sta. GVI, ; i. 455 ; v. Gall, I.e. ; cf. Schwally, TliLzg.^
1899. 356.
;
XII. 6-8 247

see Dri. ad loc.y and v. Gall, Cult-St. 107 ff.), it seems to be mentioned
as one of the sacra of Shechem under other names (a mere : n^Nn, nVhcrt
difference of pointing, v.L\ Gn. 35^, Jos. 2d^^ Du/iyo p'?N ('terebinth of ;
soothsayers'), Ju. 9^^; and nyo 'n (U- of the pillar' [n^mn]) Ju. 9^. The
tree is not said to have been planted by Abram (like the tamarisk of
—
Beersheba, 21^^), an additional indication that Abram was not origin-
The sacred stone under the tree (the
ally the patron or welt of the shrine.
3VD of Ju. 9^?) was believed to have been set up by Joshua (Jos. 24^^^).
The sanctuary of Shechem was also associated with Jacob {^'^^ 35^), and
especially with Joseph, who was buried there (Jos. 24^^), and whose
grave is still shown near the village of Balita {ballA(= oak ') see v. *
:
Gall, 117.
8. Abram moved nomadic fashion, and spread his

on,
tent (26'^^ about 20 m. from Shechem
33^^ 35^^) near Bethel, ;
there he built a second altar, and called by the name of

Vahive see on 4^^.
; Luther's rendering- predigte den : *
Namen des Herrn,' is absolutely without exegetical warrant

and the whole notion of a monotheistic propaganda, of
which Abram was the Mahdi (Je. ATLG^, 328), is a modern
invention unsupported by a particle of historical evidence.
It is noticeable that no theophany is recorded here, perhaps
because the definite consecration of Bethel was ascribed

to Jacob (ch. 28). — Here the parting from Lot took place
(ch. 13).
On Bethel {Beittn), see on 2810*^- 35' ; cf. Jos. f. Di. distinguishes

the site of Abram's altar (E of Bethel and W
of 'Ai) from that of Jacob's
pillar, which he takes to have been at Bethel itself. The more natural
view is that the local sanctuary lay E of the city (so Gu.), perhaps at
Burg BeitTn, the traditional scene of Abram's encampment (GASm.
—
EB, i. 552). On the somewhat uncertain situation of 'yrr (always with
art.=.Ty, Neh. ii^S i Ch. 7^8; and n:y, Is. id^), see Buhl, GP, 177.
XIL 9-Xin. I.—Abram in Egypt.—The first of three

variants of what must have been a very popular story in
ancient Israel (cf. 20. 26^^-). Whether the original hero
was Abraham or Isaac we cannot tell but a comparison of ;
the three parallels shows that certain primitive features of

the legend are most faithfully preserved in the passage
before us : note the entire absence of the extenuating
circumstances introduced into the other accounts, — the
whole subject being treated with a frank realism which
8. pnvn] intr. Hiph. as 26^2 (J).

— '
seems to take us down to the bed-rock of Hebrew folklore.

— 9. to the Negeh\ The dry region between the Judaean
*
'
highland and the wilderness of et-Tih^ extending from 10 or

12 m. N of Beersheba to the neighbourhood of Kadesh
(v.i.). It is still a suitable pasture ground for camel-
breeding Bedouin, and the remains of buildings and irriga-

tion works prove that it was once much more extensively
cultivated than at present. —
10. the famine was severe (lit.
*
heavy ')] emphasising the fact that the visit to Egypt was
compulsory. The Nile valley, on account of its great
fertility and its independence of the annual rainfall, was the
natural resort of Asiatics in times of scarcity and this ;
under primitive conditions involved an actual sojourn in the

country. The admission of Semites to the rich pastures of
Egypt is both described and depicted in the monuments
(see Guthe, G/, 16)."^ The purchase of corn for home
consumption (42^^) was possible as a temporary expedient
at a somewhat more advanced stage of culture. II-13. The —
speech of Abram to his wife is an instructive revelation of
social and moral sentiment in early Israel. The Hebrew
women are fairer than and are sure to be coveted
all others,
by foreigners but the marriage bond is so sacred that even
;
a foreigner, in order to possess the wife, will kill the husband
9. yiDii t^hri] Dav. § 86, R. 4; G-K. § 113 «. The idea of continuous

journeying- lies not in yiD3 (seeon ii^), but in ni^n (cf. Ju. 14^). — n3J|ri] (K
iv ry Aq. v6tov5€ 2. eZs vSrov.
eprj/Mi} : :The word, from a ^J meaning-
* dry,' occurs as a proper name of S Palestine (Ngb) in a document of
the reign of Thothmes ni. (MuUer, AE, 148; Mey. ZATW, vi. i). Its
use to denote the S direction is rare in JE, and apparently confined to
later additions (13^* 28^*, Jos. 18'). The geographical limits of the
region can, of course, only be roughly determined, chiefly from the list
of its cities in Jos. 1521-32. ©n this, and its physical characteristics, see
Che. EB, 3374 ff. Palmer, Desert of the Exodus^ ii. 351 f. (1871).
;
10. D^ ^1J^ (Jer. 42^^^^-)] properly ' dwell as a client or protected guest
(n3 = Ar. gdr\ cf. OTJC^, 342^)- The words, however, are often used in
the wider sense of temporary sojourn (15^^, Jer. 14^), and this may be
the case here.— II. Krnan] 16^ i827-
î 192.8.19 272
(all J). The free use
of Ni (c. 40 t. Gen.) is very characteristic of J (Ho. Einl. no). 13.
in —
^N 'nni<] oratio ohliqua without '?, G-K. § 157 a. ffir, on the contrary, on
* Cf, Authority and Archceology^ p. 59 ; DB^ ii. 531'' (note J),

::
XII. 9-i6 249
first. Hence the dilemma with which Abram is confronted

if Sarai is known as his wife, her hfe will be safe, but he
will probably be slain
if she passes as his sister, her honour
;
willbe endangered, but his advantag-e will be served. In

such a case the true Hebrew wife will not hesitate to sacrifice
husband
herself for her at the same time she is a free
:
moral agent: Abram's proposal is not a command but a

deferential request. Lastly, it is assumed that in the
circumstances lying is excusable. There is no suggestion
that either the untruthfulness or the selfish cowardice of the
request was severely reprobated by the ethical code to which
the narrative appealed. — 14, 15. The stratagem succeeds
beyond expectation. Sarai attracts the notice of the
courtiers, and is brought into Pharaoh's harem. The
incident is characteristic of Oriental despotisms generally
Ebers {Aeg: u. d. B. Mosis, 262 f.) cites from the d'Orbiney
papyrus an example of the zeal of Egyptian officials in

—
matters of this kind. 16. he treated Abram well, etc.] cf. v.^^.
This feature of the reward is a standing element of the
tradition ; but in ch. only bestowed after the
20 it is
misunderstanding has been cleared up, and in 26^^^- its

connexion with the incident is loosened.
The enumerated constituted the riches of the patriarchs 20^*

gifts :
24^ Jb. i^ 42^^), and were perhaps regarded by this nar-

30"*^ 32^5^- (cf.
rator as the foundation of Abram's subsequent wealth. The animals

mentioned were all known in ancient Egypt (Ebers, 265 fF.), except the
dd. airoO el/xL —

'?^^2] In Hex. only 30^ 39' (J) and 3 t. in Dt. elsewhere :
—
4 t. 15. ny-iB] The title of all Egyptian kings mentioned in OT except
Shishak (i Ki. 14^^) and Sev^ (2 Ki. 17^). It corresponds exactly to
Eg. Pero ('Great House'), denoting originally the palace or court, and
is not applied to the person of the king earlier than the i8th dynasty
(Erman, LAE, 58 Griffith, DB, iii. 819 Mii. EB, iii. 3687). It is needless
; ;
to go further in search of an etymology, though Renouf, PSBA, xv. 421,

may be consulted. A confusion of the name here with the ** Pir u king of
Musuri " mentioned by Sargon {KIBy ii. 55, etc.), is too readily suspected
by Cheyne {EB, 3164, and TBAI, 223 cf. Wi. MVAG, iii. 2 ff.). Even
;
supposing it proved that this is the proper name of a N Arabian prince,

the narrative here must be much older than the time of Sargon and it ;
is inconceivable that the Heb. designation for the kings of Egypt should
have been determined by an isolated and accidental resemblance to a
native word. —
16. After njjî xxx inserts nND n33 njpo, and puts nh^î Dn:;j^l
— ;
camel, which is neither represented nor named in the monuments before

the Greek period.* This, Mliller supposes, was due to a religious
scruple but, of course, the difficulty remains of thinking that a
;
religiously unclean animal should have been bred in Egypt, or have

been gifted by Pharaoh to Abram. The order also slaves between —
he-asses and she-asses is strange —
the explanation (Ho. Gu.) that
;
the slaves were intermediate in value between these animals is jejune,

and is, besides, contradicted by 24^^ 30^^ It is possible that D'S?^' nJri{<
has been added at the end by a glossator ; but see 24^' 30**, and cf.
MX below.
17. The story reaches its climax. Yahwe interposes at

the extreme moment and avert calamity from
to save Sarai
the patriarchal house. It is noteworthy that Yahwe's inter-
vention is here purely providential in 20^^- it takes the form :
of a personal communication, while in the attenuated version

of 26^^- it has become superfluous and is omitted. smote with
great plagues\ severe bodily maladies ; cf. 20^'^, Ex. 11^, Ps.
39^^ etc. How Pharaoh discovered the cause of his sickness

we are left to conjecture ; Jos. {Ant. i. 164 f.) pretty nearly
exhausts the possibilities of the case when he mentions
sacrifice, inquiry at the priests, and interrogation of Sarai.
Gu. is probably right in suggesting that something has been
omitted between ^'^
and ^^. — 18, 19. To the vigorous expos-
tulation of the Pharaoh, Abram is unable to reply. The
narrator evidently feels that morally the heathen king is in
the right; and the zest with which the story was related
was not quite so unalloyed by ethical reflexions as Gu. (151)
would have us believe. The idea of God, however, is im-
perfectly moralised Yahwe's providence puts in the wrong
;
the man who is justified at the bar of human conscience ; He

is not here the absolutely righteous Being proclaimed by the
prophets (Am. 3^). —20. Pharaoh gave men charge concerning
before onbnj. —
17. yari] The Pi. only of smiting with disease 2 Ki. 15', :
2 Ch. 26^ (Pu. Ps. 73'). —

D'Vi|] ffir + KoX vovTjpoh. —
in'5"nNi] possibly a
gloss from 20"^- (KS. al.); see on 2'.— 19. n,?Ni] 'so that I took'; Dri.
r. § 74 a, § 1 16, Obs. 2.— ?!fiyi<] ffi + ?;'JsJ'.— 20. Mx(!& add at the end isy oiV],
as in MT of 13^ the phrase is interpolated in both places.
:
* Cf. Ex. 9^ (J) ; and see Sayce, EHff, 169 (the notice unhistorical)
Erman, LAEy 493. Ebers' statement as to the name is corrected by
Miiller, AE, 142, EB, i. 634.
— ;
:
XII. I7-XIII. 6 251
Abram] i.e. provided him with an escort (n?B^ as 18^® 3i^^)»

The thought of ignominious expulsion is far from the writer's
mind the purpose of the escort is to see that no further
;
injury is done to the patriarch or his wife (lEz.), bringing

fresh judgements on the realm. XIII. I. The narrative
closes with the return of Abram to his home in the Negeb
(cf. 129).
—
Source 0/12^^'^. It has already been pointed out (p. 242 f.)that, though
the section breaks the connexion of the main narrative, it is Yahwistic
in style ; and the question of its origin relates only to its place within
the g-eneral cycle of Yahwistic tradition. Three views are possible
that it a secondary expansion of J by a later hand (We.); (2) a
is (i)
misplaced chapter of J's main narrative belonging properly to a subse-

quent stage of the history or (3) an excerpt from a separate Yahwistic
;
collection (Gu. [J^]). To (i) and (2) there are distinct objections (a) :
the style and moral tone of the narrative, which are those of racy
popular legend, and produce the impression of great antiquity {b) the ;
absence from the character of Abram of those ideal features which are
prominent in the main narrative, and which later ages tended to ex-
aggerate {e.g. ch. 14) especially (c) the fact that the home of Abram
;
is not at Hebron but in the Negeb. Gu.'s theory, which is not open to
these objections, seems, therefore, to mark an advance in the analysis of J.
2-18. Separation of Abram and Lot. — 2, 5, 7. The

great wealth of the two patriarchs leads to bickering among
their retainers. The situation reflects the relations of tribes
rather than of private families, quarrels about pastures and
watering-places being a common feature of nomadic life and
a frequent cause of separation : cf. 21^^ 26^^^*. — 2. Silver and
gold] 24^^ 20^^ 23^®. — 5. Lot's substance, on the other hand,
is purely nomadic : flocks^ herds^ and tents. The last word
appears to have the sense of * people,' * families '
; cf. Ar.
'ahl, Sab. i^nx (Miiller, ZDMG, xxxvii. 341 ; Homm. SA
Chrest, 121). — 3, 4. Aredactional addition (p. 243), bringing
the narrative back to Bethel, the traditional scene of the
separation. — 6. P's account of the parting : cf. 36^. It has
often been noticed that he makes no mention of a quarrel
just as J says nothing of the straitness of the land {y.i.). —
3. I'V^P^] simply *
by stages ' ; not by the same stages by which he
17I ap^'^ etc.— 5. (G-K.
had come ((!5U Ra.) : cf. Ex. D'Snxi §§ 93 r,
23 A)] ^^ KT-fjvT}, prob. Gr. corruption of <XKr]pai (so many MSS). — 6. n^J]
Au HKB-J— better. Cf. 36' (P).— 6b/3 is by some (KS. Ho.) assigned to J,
— — — —
—
8, 9. The thought of strife between relatives (D^nx D^tJ'JK) is in-
tolerable to Abram, who, though the older man, renounces

his rights for the sake of an amicable settlement. The
narrator has finely conceived the magnanimity which springs
from fellowship with God. The peaceable disposition
ascribed to the patriarchs is characteristic of the old narra-
tives. Jacob substitutes guile for force, but Abraham and
Isaac conquer by sheer reasonableness and conciliation.
10, Iia, I2b/3. Lot's choice. lifted up his eyes and saw etc.\ ^
The Bur^ Beitln (p. 247), a few minutes SE from the village,
is described as "one of the great view-points of Palestine"
(GASm. EB^ 552), from which the Jordan valley and the N
end of the Dead Sea are clearly visible. the whole Oval of
the fordan\ cf. Dri. Dent. 421 f.
\YtJy 13? (only here and i Ki. 7*^ = 2 Ch. 4"), or 1330 simply (v.^^
jgi7.25. 28f^ is not (as Di. 230) the whole of the'Arabah
Dt. 343, 2 Sa. 1 82^),
from the Lake of Galilee to the Dead Sea, but the expansion of the
Jordan valley towards its S end, defined in Dt. 34^ as the plain of '
Jericho' (see 505 if. Buhl, GP^ 112). The northern limit is in-
HG, ;
determinate the southern depends on the site of Zoar (v.^°), whether

;
N or S of the Dead Sea. It is thus not quite certain whether the term
includes the Dead Sea basin ; and on this hangs the much more import-
ant question whether the writer conceives the Sea as non-existent at the
time to which the narrative refers. That is certainly the impression
produced by the language of v.^°. Apart from the assumption of a
radical transformation of the physical features of the region, the words
before Yahwe destroyed S. and G. have no significance. As a mere note
of time they would merely show the connexion of the story with ch. 19,
and might very well be a gloss (Ols. Di.). See below, pp. 273 f. ôâr
is the S limit of the Kikkdr, and, if situated at the S end of the Lake
(as is most probable), would not be seen from Bethel.
but on insufficient grounds (cf. Hupf. Qu. 21 f.) 7b. 3t?'] xxx c'ê". Tl?!?] — —
The name is coupled with 'Jj;;^|n in 34^°, Ju. i^- ^ (J), and often appears
in enumerations of the pre-Israelite inhabitants (15=^*^ etc.). If, as is
probable, it be connected with Mi,? (Dt. 3**, i Sa. 6^^ Est. 9^^), nijng
(Ezk. 38^^, Zee. 2^ Est. 9^^), it would mean hamlet-dwellers as dis- *
'
tinguished from Canaanites, occupying fortified cities (see on '^nn, lo")*^

That the P. were remnants of a /r^-Canaanite population is hardly to
be inferred from the omission of the name in lo^^^-, or from its
association with the Rephaim in Jos. 17^^: this last notice is wanting
in (&.^'^ and is perhaps a gloss (Moore, Jud. 17). 9. K'?q] (&^ r\irr\. — —
^NDi^n — pp.'u] Ball suggests the pointing ^N^^n, j'p'n (infs. abs.). ux.
reads n^NOî'n nrD\n dni nro'm Thi<o^n dn. — lo. n^2] xxx iSd ; (&^ om.
'li^y'O] in the sense of *
watered region ' only again Ezk. 45^^ (where
— —— ;
XIII. 7-17 253
land of Egypi\ coming after Like the garden of

like the
Yahwe cf. Is. 51"^) it is an anti-climax, which might
(2^^"'^^',
be excused (as Di. thinks) because the first comparison was

pitched too high. But the last half of the v. seems greatly-
overloaded, and it is not improbable that both nnbj; '•Jpp and
—
^ ND are to be removed as glosses. On the luxuriant fertility —
and abundant water-supply of the district, see HG^ 483 f.
Buhl, 39; Seetzen, Reisen, i. Lot departed east- 417. — lia.
ward] see on iiând the footnote infra. 125^9. The im- —
mediate continuation (in J) of ^^* and moved his tent up to :
Sodom] the intervening words being from P (cf. 13311 '•ny

instead of i"n">*!] '3). 13. This notice of the sinfulness of Sodom
is another anticipation of ch. 19 but it is introduced here ;
with great effect as showing how Lot had over-reached him-

self by his selfish conduct. 14-17- The promise of the land
is now confirmed to Abram. 14. Lift up thine eyes, etc.]
the contrast to Lot's self-interested glance (v.^^), while
Abram, by his magnanimous surrender of his claims, had
unconsciously chosen the good part. 15. It — is very doubtful
if the Ci7iv ny can be considered (with Di.) a new element of
the promise as compared with 12^. — 16. the dust of the
earth] 2814.
This solemn assurance of the possession of the land (i^-i^) ig some-

what of a contrast to the simple promises of la^-' and has affinities ;
with a series of passages which appear to represent a later phase of

religious reflexion (see on ch. 15, p. 284). Other reasons are adduced
for thinking that ^^"^'^ are the work of a younger hand than the original
J. (a) It is not the habit of J to cite divine oracles without a specifica-
tion of the circumstances under which the theophany takes place (but
see 12^^-). {b) The conception of Abram as wandering over the land
is not that of J^, who fixes his permanent dwelling-place at Hebron,
(c) While Bethel commands a view of the Jordan valley, it affords no
the text is corrupt) and Sir. 39^^. Should we read njjy-'D? — nasa] see
10I9.—lyî] ^ ^JLf =Tanis (lys) in Egypt (Nu. 1322, Is. 19". i3
etc.),
which is preferred by Ball, but is rather an error caused by the pre-

ceding Dn^jp. — II. D-nijp (cf. 11^)] ab oriente. But
fflr airo avarokQiv, U
the only possible sense here is * eastward
hence Sta. {Ak. Reden, '
;
292) and Gu. emend to nonp, —

lib, in spite of its resemblance to ^*)3,
must be assigned to P, being necessary to the completeness of that
account, and because it disturbs the connexion of ^^* with ^^b^.
16. i?'k]=*so that' (G-K. § 166 b).—V]. (&. adds at end koX ry airipfiaTi
wide prospect of the land as a whole. We. {Comp,^ 25 f.) admits that
these g-eneral impressions are not such as to procure universal assent.
* '
In point of fact they are rather overstated and Di.'s answers may ;
satisfy those who refuse to carry critical operations further than is

absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, We.'s impression is probably
correct, and has commended itself to KS. Ho. Gu. al.* The w.
may be omitted not only without injury to the context, but with the
obvious advantag-e of bringing out the reference of ^^ to ^'^^'. The
redactor has rightly seized the point of the story, which is that by his
selfish choice Lot left Abram the sole heir of Canaan.
18. Abram moves his tent to the terehinth{s) of Mamre^

in Hebron, and inaugurates the local sanctuary there. In
the main narrative of J^ the statement was immediately
followed by ch. 18 and it is possible that the theophany
;
recorded at the beginning of that chapter is that which

marked the place as holy (see on 12^).
The site of the tree (or trees, v.iJ) is not known. There was a
Terebinth of Abraham about 15 stadia from Hebron, which was the
scene of mixed heathen and Christian worship, suppressed by order
of Constantine (Sozomen, HE, ii. 4). Josephus (Z?/, iv. 533) mentions
a very large terebinth said to have existed Lirh r^5 Kriaews jJ.ixp'- ^^"t
6 stadia from the city. In spite of the discrepancy as to distance, it
is probable that these are to be identified and that the site was the
;
Hardm Rdmet el-HalTl, 2 m. N of Hebron. The difficulty in accepting

this, the oldest accessible, tradition is that the distance is inconsistent
with the statement that the sanctuary was in Hebron. And if we
suppose the ancient Hebron to have been at er-Rdme in the vicinity
of the Hardniy this conflicts with the tradition as to the cave of
cov els t6v alQva, — approved by Ball. — 18. K-iDD "i^H (14^^ 18^)] see on
12^. (& TTjv 8pdv Tr)v Ma/bL^priv. 5 also reads the sing., which may be
right, though 18^ cannot be cited in support of it. In J, Mamre is said
to be in Hebron, in P (where the tree is never mentioned) it is a
name of Hebron, and in i^^^- ^* it becomes the name of an Amorite
chief, the owner of the trees. So Si here, as shown by the addition of
* The only point on which it is impossible to follow We. is his
assumption that Hebron is the fixed residence of Abram in all strata

of J, and that the notion of his migratory life arose from the amalgama-
tion of E (which puts Beersheba in the place of Hebron) with J. There
was probably a whole cycle of Yahwistic legends, in which he is
represented as Uving in the Negeb (see already on 12^^-). So far as
mere literary criticism goes, there is no reason why the addition should
not be prior to RJ"^.
—
XIII. I8-XIV. 255
Machpelah, which has as good claims to be considered authentic.

The present Oak of Abraham,' about 2 m. NW, is as old as the
*
i6th cent. See Robinson, BR, i. 216; Buhl, GP, 160, 162; Baedeker,
Pal. andSyr.^ 138, 142 ; Dri. DB, iii. 224 f. v. Gall, CSt. 52.
;
Ch. XIV. Abrams Victory over Four Kings.
While Abram was at Hebron, a revolt of five petty kings

in the Jordan valley against their over-lord Chedorlaomer
of Elam brought from the East a great punitive expedition,
in which no fewer than four powerful monarchs took part.
A successful campaign — the course of which is traced in
detail —ended in the complete defeat of the rebels in a
pitched battle inwhat is now the Dead Sea basin, followed
by the sack of Sodom, and the capture of Lot (^~^^). Abram,
with a handful of slaves, pursues the victorious allies to
Dan, routs them in a night attack, and rescues the captives,

including Lot (^^~^®). On his homeward journey he is
met by Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blesses him in
the name of God Most High, and to whom he pays tithes
î8-2oj .and by the king of Sodom, whose offer of the spoil
Abram rejects with proud and almost disdainful magnanimity
p7. 2i-24j^ —
Such is in brief the content of this strange and
perplexing chapter, in its present form and setting. It is
obvious that the first half is merely introductory, and that

the purpose of the whole is to illustrate the singular dignity
of Abram's position among the potentates of the earth.
Essentially peaceful, yet ready on the call of duty to take
the field against overwhelming odds, disinterested and
considerate of others in the hour of victory, reverential
towards the name and representative of the true God, he
moves as a 'great prince' amongst his contemporaries,
combining the highest earthly success with a certain
detachment and unworldliness of character. Whether the —
picture be historically true or not —a question reserved for
a concluding note — it is unfair to deny to it nobility of con-
ception ; and it is perhaps an exaggeration to assert that
it stands in absolute and unrelieved opposition to all we
elsewhere read of Abram. The story does not give the
256 abram's victory
impression that Abram forfeits the character of Muslim and *
prophet ' (We.) even when he assumes the role of a warrior.

Literary character. — Many features of the chapter show that it has
had a peculiar literary history, (a) The vocabulary, thoug-h exhibiting-
sporadic affinities with P (eJid-i, "• ^"^ ^^' ^^ n:3 T^?, ^"^ B'I'i [= person '], î)
; ;
*
or E (noNn, '^-
^^ ;n;;^?, 2-*)^ contains several expressions which are eithe**
unique or rare (see the footnotes) X^n, ^^ (aTr. Xe7.) ^'-\j\, ^^ i3'V?n, ^^
: ; ;
'^^'^' ^
n:p, jv^j; "^n, J30,
;
^^ Tio, ^.*
;
—
(6) The numerous antiquarian glosses
and archaic names, sug-gesting^ the use of an ancient document, have no
parallel except in Dt. 2^°-^2. 20-23 ^. ii. i?b. 14 a.nd even these are not quite
.
of the same character. (c) The annalistic official style, specially

noticeable in the introduction, may be genuine or simulated in either ;
case it marks the passage sharply off from the narratives by which it
is surrounded. —
That the chapter as it stands cannot be assigned to
any of the three sources of Gen. is now universally acknowledged, and
need not be further argued here. Some writers postulate the existence
of a literary kernel which may either (i) have originated in one of the
schools J or E,f or (2) have passed through their hands. J In neither
form can the theory be made at all plausible. The treatment of docu-
mentary material supposed by (i) is unexampled in Gen. and those who ;
suggest it have to produce some sufficient reason why a narrative of

(say) required to be so heavily glossed. As for (2), we have, to be
E
sure, no experience of how E or J would have edited an old cuneiform
—
document if it had fallen into their hands, they were collectors of oral
tradition, not manipulators of official records, but we may presume that —
if the story would not bear telling in the vivid style that went to the
hearts of the people, these writers would have left it alone. The objec-
tions to P's authorship are equally strong, the style and subject being
alike foreign to the well-marked character of the Priestly narration.
Ch. xiv. is therefore an isolated boulder in the stratification of the
Pent., a fact which certainly invites examination of its origin, but is
not in itself an evidence of high antiquity.
1-4. The revolt of the five kings. — I. The four names
I. 'p'?] ffir iv r% âaiXelq, ; 5J in illo tempore, reading all the names in

the nom. (& has the first in gen. and the rest nom. (&^ further inserts
;
* The singularity of the passage appears to be reflected even in the

translation of (&, which has some unusual renderings I'ttttos for tPOi, :
11. 16. 21
(nowhere else in OT) (pdpay^ for pay, ^ (not again in Pent. twice
; :
in Jos. and 4 t. in Book of Isa.) Trepdr??? (ctTra^ ^^T-) for "I'^V, ^^

; though —
this might be explained by the unexpected occurrence of the gentilic in
this connexion (Aq. TrepatrTjs).
t So Di. Kittel {GH, i. 124, 158 ff.), and (with reserve) Ho., all of
whom think of E as the most likely source.
J So Wi. GI, ii. 26-48, who holds that the original was a cuneiform
document of legendary and mythical character, which was worked over
first by E and then by J (see below, p. 272).
—
XIV. I, 2 257
(see below) do double duty, gen. after Vo"'3 and as — as

subj. to '"O ib'V —a which a good writer would
faulty syntax
have avoided (v.z.). The suggestion that the first two names
are gen. and the last two subj.,* has the advantage of
putting Kedorld omer^ the head of the expedition (*• ^' ^- 1^),
in the place of honour but it is without warrant in the Heb.
;
text and besides, by excluding the first two kings from

;
participation in the campaign (against ^- ^- ^^), it necessitates

a series of changes too radical to be safely undertaken.
2. The group of five cities (Pentapolis, Wis. 10^) is thought
to be the result of an amalgamation of originally independent

traditions.
In ch. 19, only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned as destroyed

so 13I0, Is. i9'-, Jer. 23^^ etc.) and Zoar (19"*) as spared.
(1924.28 [i82oj.
Admah and Zeboim are named alone in Hos. ii^ in a manner hardly
consistent with the idea that they were involved in the same catastrophe
as S. and G. The only passages besides this where the four are
associated are 10^^ and Dt. 29^2, although 'neighbour cities' of S. and
G. are referred to in Jer. 49^8 ôô^ Ezk. i6"*^^-. If, as seems probable,
there were two distinct legends, we cannot assume that in the original
tradition Admah and Zeboim were connected with the Dead Sea (see
—
Che. EB, 66 f.). The old name of Zoar, yVa (Destruction?), appears
nowhere else.
The four names in v.^ are undoubtedly historical, although the monu-
mental evidence is less conclusive than is often represented, (i) Ss-jpN
{'Afj,ap(f>a\) is thought to be a faulty transcription of Jâmmurahi
{Amviurah\_p'\i\ the name of the 6th king of the first Bab. dynasty,
who put an end to the Elamite domination and united the whole country
under his own sway {c. 2100 B.c.).t The final presents a difficulty "?
which has never been satisfactorily explained but the equivalence is ;
K0.I between the second and third. The reading of the Sixtine ed.
(firsttwo names in gen. coupled by /cai), which is appealed to in support
of Wi.'s construction, has very little MS authority. " I have little doubt
that both in H. and P. 19 (which is a rather carelessly written MS) and
in 135 the reading is due to a scribe's mistake, probably arising from
misreading of a contracted termination and induced by the immediately
preceding /SacrtX^ws. How it came into the Roman edition, I do not feel
sure." J— 2. v\i\ ffir BaXXa, etc. — 3x4?'] ^ lêvvaap. — i^Npa'] dSc l,v/xoôpf
^vfiop, ux n3NDB' ('name has perished'), & f-jfiQ^.— N'n] the first
of the 11 instances of this KetMh in Pent, (see on 2^2^^
* Wi. GI, ii. 27, 30 Peiser, MVAG, 1897, 308

; ff. ; approved by Gu.
t See Introd. pp. xiv f.
X Private communication from Mr. M'Lean.
17
258 abram's victory
widely recog-nised by Assyriologists.* It is, however, questioned by

by Bezold, J and pronounced 'problematical'
Jen.t, absolutely rejected
by Mey. GA^, i. ii. 551.— (On n^t?'? see lo^^)— (2) Ti'inN (cf. Dn. 2^*, Jth.
1^), it seems, is now Wi^Jirt^gu, the Sumerian
satisfactorily identified
equivalent of Arad-Sin, a king of Larsa, who was succeeded by his
more famous brother, Rim-Sin, the ruler who was conquered by
Hammurabi m the 31st year of the latter's reign {KAT^^ 16, 19). The
two brothers, sons of the Elamite Kudurmabug, were first distinguished
by Thureau-Dangin in 1907 [Sumer, und Akkad. Konigsinschr. 2iof. ;
cf. King, Chronicles concerning early Bah. Kings, vol. i. 68^ Mey. GA'^y ;
I. ii. p. 550 f.). Formerly the two names and persons were confused;
and Schrader's attempt to identify Rim-Sin with Arioch,§ though
accepted by many, was reasonably contested by the more cautious
Assyriologists, e.g. Jen. {ZDMG, 1896, 247 ff.), Bezold {op. cit. 27, 56),
and Zimmern {KAT^, 367)- The objections do not hold against the
equation Arioch = Eria,gii = Arad-Sin, provided Arad-Sin be kept distinct
from Rim-Sin. The discovery by Pinches in 1892 of the name ||
Eri-ÊIaku or Eri-Ekua stands on a somewhat different footing. The

tablets on which these names occur are admittedly late (not earlier than
the 4th cent. B.C.) the identity of the names with Eri-Aku is called in
;
question by King IT who further points out that this Eri-Ekua is not
;
styled a king, that there is nothing to connect him with Larsa, and
that consequently we have no reason to suppose him the same as
either of the well-known contemporaries of Hammurabi. The real
significance of the discovery lies in the coincidence that on these
same late fragments (and nowhere else) the two remaining names
—
of the V. are supposed to occur. (3) npy^"jn|i (Xo5oXXo7o/iop) unquestion-
ably stands for Kxidur-lagamar, a genuine Elamite proper name, con-
taining the name of a known Elamite divinity Lagamar {KAT^, 485),
preceded by a word which appears as a component of theophorous
Elamite names {Kudur-mahug, Kudur-Nanhundi, etc.). It is extremely
doubtful, however, if the actual name has yet been found outside of this
chapter. The "sensational" announcement of Scheil (1896), that he
had read it {Ku-dur-nu-uh-ga-mat^ in a letter of Hammurabi to Sinid-
innam, king of Larsa, has been disposed of by the brilliant refutation
of King {pp. cit. xxv-xxxix. Cf. also Del. BA, iv. 90). There remains
the prior discovery of the Pinches fragments, on which there is men-
tioned thrice a king of Elam whose name, it was thought, might be
read Kudur-laT}-mal or Kudur-la^-gu-mal.** The first element (Kudur)
* See Schr. SBBA, 1887, xxxi. 600 ff. t ZDMG, 1896, 252.
X Die bab.-ass. Keilinschriften, etc., 1904, pp. 26, 54.
§ SBBA, 1894, XV. 279 flf.
II
See his OT
in the light, etc., 223 if. cf. Homm. AHT, 181 fF.
;
;
and Sayce's amended trans, in PSBA, 1906, 193 ff., 241 ff.1907, 7ff.
;
IT Letters and Inscrs. of Hamviicrahi, i. p. liii. Jen., Peiser, and

Bezold also pronounce against the identification.
** This reading is questioned by King see liv-lvi, or the extract in
;
Dri. Gen., Addenda on p. 157 n. Sayce now (I.e. p. 1946.) proposes to

XIV. I, 2 259
is no doubt right, but the second is very widely questioned by Assyri-
ologists.* There is, moreover, nothing to show that the king in
question, whatever his name, belonged to the age of yammurabi.f
(4) '?Vin (<!&^^ OapyaX, ^ ^,»JL5Z) was identified by Pinches with a

**^ Tu-ud-lûl-a, son of Gaz. . . .," who is named once on the tablets
already spoken of (see Schr. SBBA, 1895, xli. 961 fif.). The resemblance
to Tid'al is very close, and is naturally convincing to those who find
'Ariok and Kedorla omer in the same document there is, however, no ;
indication that Tud^tilawas a king, or that he was contemporary with

^mmurabi and Rim-Sin (King, op. czV.). pna c an hardly be the usual —
word for 'nations' ((KF^T), either as an indefimte expression (Tu.) or
as a •* verschamtes e^ cetera" (Ho.). We seem to require a proper
name (^ has ( i \ ,..) ; and many accept the suggestion of Rawlinson,
that Guti (a people N of the Upper Zab) should be read. Peiser (309)
thinks that Dîa ^70 is an attempt to render the common Babylonian title
sar kissati.
The
royal names in v.^ are of a different character from those of v.'.
Several circumstances suggest that they are fictitious. Jewish exegesis
gives a sinister interpretation to all four (^T^, Ber. R. § 42, Ra.) and ;
even modern scholars like Tu. and No. recognise in the first two a play
on the words y] (evil) and yc'-j (wickedness). And can it be accidental
that they fall into two alliterative pairs, or that each king's name
contains exactly as many letters as that of his city ? On the other side,
it may be urged («) that the textual tradition is too uncertain to justify
any conclusions based on the Heb. (see the footnote) {b) the nameless- ;
ness of the fifth king shows that the writer must have had traditional
authority for the other four and (c) Sanihu occurs as the name of an
;
Ammonite king in an inscr. of Tiglath-pileser iv. (Del. Par. 294, KIB,

ii. 21). These considerations do not remove the impression of artifici-
ality which the list produces. Since the names are not repeated in v. 8,
it is quite possible they are late insertions in the text, and, of course (on
that view), unhistorical. —yâ is elsewhere a royal name (36^2^.
read Kudur-lakhkha-mal ; but the reading appears to be purely con-

jectural and, unless it should be corroborated, nothing can be built
;
upon it.
* e.g. by King, Zimmern {KA 7^, 486^), Peiser (who reads it Kudur-
tur-bity I.e. 310), Jen., Bezold, al.
t There is no doubt some difficulty in finding room for a king
Kudur-lagamar alongside of Kudur-mabug (who, if not actually king
of Elam, was certainly the over-lord of Arad-Sin and Rim-Sin) in the
time of Hammurabi but in our ignorance of the situation that difficulty
;
must not be pressed. It has, however, induced Langdon (Dri., Gen"^,

Add. xxxii.) to revive a conjecture of G. Smith, that Kudur-mabug and
the Kudur-lagamar of this chapter are one and the same person. It
does not appear that any fresh facts have come to light to make the
guess more convincing than it was when first propounded.
— — —
;
26o abram's victory
3. all Ihese] not the kings from the East (Di. Dri.), but
(see V.*) those of the Pentapolis. That there should be any
doubt on the point is an indication of the weak style of the
chapter. What exactly the v. means to say is not clear.
The most probable sense is that the five cities formed a
league] of the Vale of Siddim, and therefore acted in concert.
This is more natural than to suppose the statement a pre-
mature mention of the preparations for battle in v.®. the

Vale of Siddim] The name is peculiar to this narrative, and
its meaning is unknown (v.i.). 1 ..<d writer manifestly shares
the belief (13^^) that what is now the Dead Sea was once
dry land (see p. 273 f. below). The Sea of Salt] one of the
OT names for the Dead Sea (Nu. 34^, Dt. 31^, Jos. 3^^ 15^
etc.): see PEFS, 1904, 64. Wi.'s attempt to identify it
with Lake Huleh is something of a tour de force [GI, ii. 36 f. ;
of. 108 f.). —

4. they rebelled] by refusal of tribute (2 Ki. 18^
2^1.20 etc.). An Elamite dominion over Palestine in the
earlier part of Hammurabi's reign is perfectly credible in
the light of the monumental evidence (p. 272). But the
importance attributed in this connexion to the petty kings
of the Pentapolis is one of the features which excite suspicion
of the historicity of the narrative. To say that this is due
to the writer's interest inLot and Sodom is to concede that
his conception of the situation is determined by other influ-
ences than authentic historical information.
5-7. The preliminary campaign. — One of the sur-
a preg-nant constr. (G-K. § 119 ^^)=* came

3. *?« nan] apparently
as confederates to but this is rather harsh.
' ; h)< after inn naturally
refers to that to which one is joined (Ex. 26^ of a person, Sir. 12^^) ; :
that being- impossible here, nnn must be understood absolutely as Ju.

20^^ {v. Moore or Bu. ad loc.) and the "^n may have some vague local
reference all these had formed a confederacy at (?) the V. of
:
* S. '
C'nij'n pcy] (S^ rriv apparently a conjecture from the

(pdpayya tt)v akvKr}v,
context, TS vaJlem silvestrem. W^ has N''?pn (from ni^), ^J K'cms

.S V. of the Sodomites
*
on the rendering's of Aq. and 0. see Field's
' :
Note, p. 30 f. It is evident the Vns. did not understand the word.

Noldeke {Unters. 160^), Renan {Hist. i. 116), We. {Gesch.^ 105), Je.
{ATLO^, 35i)> al. think the true form is D'"]^ 'valley of demons.' 4. :
— —
tySy?] Ace. of time (G-K. § 118 «) but ux vhvy\ is better.;"na] rare in
Hex. (Nu 149, Jos. 2216- 18. 19. 29 ["pj) ^nd mostly late.— 5. D'Nn'n?] The
.
art. should be supplied, with jui. (& rovs yiyavras so ^^'^L—'p nhnyy?] ;
— 1
XIV. 3-7 26
is the circuitous route by

prising" things in the narrative
which the Eastern kings march against the rebels. We
may assume that they had followed the usual track by
Carchemish and Damascus thence they advanced south-
:
wards on the E of the Jordan but then, instead of attack- ;
ing the Pentapolis, they pass it on their right, proceeding*

southward to the head of the Gulf of Akaba. Then they
turn NWto Kadesh, thence NE to the Dead Sea depression ;
and only at the end of this long and difficult journey do

they join issue with their enemies in the vale of Siddim.
it has been suggested that the real object of the expe-
In explanation,
dition was secure conrmand of the caravan routes in
to Arabia, W
especially that leading through the Arabah from Syria to the Red Sea
(see Tu. 2578".). It must be remembered, however, that this is the
account, not of the first assertion of Elamite supremacy over these
regions, but of the suppression of a revolt of not more than a few
months' standing hence it would be necessary to assume that all the
:
peoples named were implicated in the rebellion. This is to go behind

the plain meaning and the verisimilitude of the
of the Heb. narrator ;
description is enhanced by Hommel's wholly improbable

certainly not
speculation that the Pentapolis was the centre of an empire embracing
the whole region E of the Jordan and the land of Edom [AHT, 149).
If there were any truth in theories of this kind, we should still have to
conclude that the writer, for the sake of literary effect, had given a
fictitiotis importance to the part played by the cities of the Jordan valley,
and had so arranged the incidents as to make their defeat seem the
climax of the campaign. (See Noldeke, 163 f.)
The general course of the campaign can be traced with sufficient
The reading of the Sixtineand Aldine edd. of (&, 'kcrrapiad Kal

Kapvaiv, which even Di. adduces
in favour of a distinction between
the two cities, has, amongst the MSS used by the Cambridge
editors, the support of only one late cursive, which Nestle maintains
was copied from It is doubtless a conflation of Kappaiv
the Aldine ed.
and the Kat Natv (? KaLvatv) of (£E, ai. (NesUe, ZDPV, xv. 256; cf Moore,
JBL, xvi. i55f).— onnn] (K ^dvr] l(Txvpd=u'mii so &E^L S. has Zoiô/a- :
/teti'=D'i9iPi. —
Dn3] ffiU5 read ana (^[â avrois, etc.). Some MSS of mx
have Dnn, which Jerome expressly says is the real reading of the Heb.
text. — 6. m,-]n3] aju^^F 'l^'"^?- Duplication of T is rare and doubtful
(Ps. 30^, Jer. 17^) in sing, of this word, but common
Buhl in const, pi.
strikes out Tyiy as an explanatory gloss, retaining D^^n?. pHp h'H] (^SS
render 'terebinth of Paran,' and so virtually U^T^J, which have 'plain'
(see on 12*). If the ordinary theory, as given above, be correct, ^'X
is used collectively in the sense of 'great tree' (here 'palms'). 7. For —
E'î3, S>3r°J (also Saadya) have Dp^, apparently identifying it with Petra :
see Tuch's Note, p. 271 f. — ni^'J ^^ '1^> 'princes.'

— — ;
262 abram's victory
certainty from the g-eographical names of ^"'^ although it does not ;
appear quite clearly whether these are conceived as the centres of the
various nationalities or the battlefields in which they were defeated.
DM-|p nnp-^y (' Astarte of the two horns * Eus. Prcep. Ev. i. lo or A. of '
: ;
*
the two-peaked mountain f) occurs as a compound name only here. A

'
city Astdrdth in Bashan, the capital of Og's kingdom, is mentioned in

'
Dt. i^ Jos. g^'^ 12* 13^2. 31^ J QYi. 65^[ = n-i^;pi;3, Jos. 21^]. Karnaim is named
(according to a probable emendation) in Am. 6^', and in i Mac. 5^®* *^^,
2 Mac. 12^^. It is uncertain whether these are two names for one
place, or two adjacent places of which one was named after the other
('Astaroth of [i.e. near] Karnaim) ; and the confusing statements of
the OS (84»ff- 8632 joS" 209" 26888) throw little light on the question.
The various sites that have been suggested Sheikh Sad, Tell'A^tarah, —
—
Tell el- AS'ari, and El-Muzerib lie near the great road from Damascus
to Mecca, about 20 m. E of the Lake of Tiberias (see Buhl, GAPy 248 ff.
Dri. DB, i. 166 f.; GASm. in EB, 335 f.). Wetzstein's identification
with Bozrah (regarded as a corruption of Bostra, and this of .Tj^^j;?,
Jos. 21^^), the capital of the Haurin, has been shown by No. {ZDMG,
xxix. 431^) to be philologically untenable. Of a place on nothing is —
known. It is a natural conjecture (Tu. al.) that it is the archaic name
oi Rahhath, the capital of'Ammon; and Sayce {HCM, 160 f.) thinks
it must be explained as a retranscription from a cuneiform source
of the word jisy. On the text ^'.2. D:nnp ni^ is doubtless the —
Moabite or Reubenite city 'np, mentioned in Jer. 48^', Ezk. 25^, Nu.
32^, Jos. 13^^ (PS^ KapiadaeL/x, Kaptada), the modern Ktiraiydt, E
of the Dead Sea, a little S of the WadI Zerka Main. ni^ (only
here and v.") is supposed to mean * plain ' (Syr. |Z.Q_») ; but that
is somewhat problematical. — On the phrase Tj/b' DTin, see the foot-
note. While "Vt^ alone may include the plateau to the of the W
Arabah, the commoner Ti'iy in appears to be restricted to the
mountainous region E of that gorge, now called es-êra (see Buhl,
Gesch. d. Edomiter^ 28 ff.). |1N3 S'X (-y.z.) is usually identified with n^'X
(Dt. 28, 2 Ki. 1422 166) or r\\W (i Ki. 9-6, 2 Ki. 166), at the head of the E arm
of the Red Sea, which is supposed to derive its name from the groves
of daie-palms for which it was and is famous (see esp. Tu. 264 f.). The
grounds of the identification seem slender ; and the evidence does not
carry us further than Tu.'s earlier view (251), that some oasis in the N
of the desert is meant (see Che. EB^ 3584). J The '
wilderness' is the
often mentioned 'Wilderness of Paran (212', Nu. 10^2 etc.), i.e. the '
desolate plateau of et-Tih, stretching from the Arabah to the isthmus

of Suez. There is obviously nothing in that definition to support the
theory that 'kl-Pdran is the original name of the later Elath. Eîp (16^* —
20^ etc.), ora.413 'p (Nu. 34*, Dt. i^- 19 2^*). The controversy as to the
* See MuUer, AE,
313 Macalister, PEFS, 1904, 15.
;
t Moore, JBL, xvi. i56f.

X Trumbull places it at the oasis of Kola at Nahl, in the middle of
et-Tih, on the Hagg; route halfway between 'Akaba and Suez {Kadesh-
Barnea, p. 37).
XIV. 5-7 263
situation of this important place has been practically settled since the
appearance of Trumbull's Kadesh-Barnea in 1884 (see Guthe, ZDPV, viii.
183 ff.). the spring now known as
It is Mm
Kadis, at the head of the
WadI same name, "northward of the desert proper," and about
of the
50 m. S of Beersheba (see the description by Trumbull, op. cit.
272-275). The distance In a straight line from Elath would be about
80 m., with a difficult ascent of 1500 ft. The alternative name tD^^f'p py
('Well of Judgement ') is found only here. Since Bîij means *holy and '
Bîfip 'judicial decision,' it is a plausible conjecture of Rob. Sm. that the
name refers to an ordeal involving the use of holy water (Nu. 5") from *
'
the sacred well {RS^, 181). The sanctuary at Kadesh seems to have
occupied a prominent place in the earliest Exodus tradition (We.
Prol.^ 341 ff.) ; but there is no reason why the institution just alluded
to should not be of much greater antiquity than the Mosaic age. apri ji^rt —
is, according to 2 Ch. 20^, En-gMi (Atn didl), about the middle of
"
the W shore of the Dead Sea. A more unsuitable approach for an

army to any part of the Dead Sea basin than the precipitous descent
of nearly 2000 feet at this point, could hardly be imagined see :
Robinson, BR, i. 503. It is not actually said that the army made the
descent there it might again have made a detour and reached its goal
:
by a more practicable route. But certainly the conditions of this

narrative would be better satisfied by Kurnuh, on the road from Hebron
to Elath, about 20 m. WSW
of the S end of the Dead Sea. The
identification, however, requires three steps, all of which involve
uncertainties : (i) that nci? 'n = the non of Ezk. 471^ 48^8 ; (2) that this is
the Thamara of OS (85^, 210^^), the Qafxapu)
and (3) thatof Ptol. xvi. 8 ;
the ruins of this are found at Kurnuh. Buhl, GP, 184.

Cf. EB, 4890 ;
The six peoples named in vv.^^'^ are the primitive races which,
according to Heb. tradition, formerly occupied the regions traversed
by Chedorlaomer. (i) The d'nei are spoken of as a giant race dwelling
partly on the W
(152°, Jos. \f^^, 2 Sa. 2i^«, Is. 175), partly on the E,
of the Jordan, especially in Bashan, where reigned as the last of Og

the Rephaim (Dt. 3^^ Jos. 12* etc.).— (2) The
only mentioned here, D'pT,
are probably the same as the Zamzummim of Dt. 2^^, the aborigines of
the Ammonite country. The equivalence of the two forms is considered
by Sayce {ZA, iv. 393) and others to be explicable only by the Baby-
lonian confusion of vt and w, and thus a proof that the narrative came
—
ultimately from a cuneiform source. (3) D'p'Nn] a kind of Rephaim,
aborigines of Moab (Dt. 2i*'^-).— (4) "-p^ril the race extirpated by the
Edomites (362<"^-, Dt. 2^2. 22)^ ^he name has usually been understood to
mean troglodytes (see Dri. Deut. 38) but this is questioned by Jen.
*
' ;
{ZA, X. 332 f., 346 f.) and Homm. {AHT, 264^), who identify the word with
Ifam, the Eg. name for SW
Palestine.*— (5) 'pSoyn] the Amalekite
territory (ht^), was in the Negeb, extending towards Egypt (Nu. i^^
j^^43. 45^ I Sa. 27^). In ancient tradition, Amalek was 'the firstling of
peoples' (Nu. 2420), although, according to Gn. 36^2 j(.g ancestor was
a grandson of Esau.— (6) 'ib^n] see on 10^^ and cf. Dt. i^, Ju. i^. ;
* Cf. Muller, AE, 136 f., 148 fF.

;
264 abram's victory
While there can be no question of the absolute historicity of the last

three names, the first three undoubtedly provoke speculation. Rephaim
is the name for shades ov ghosts 'Emim probably means terrible ones
;
'
'
;
and Zamzummim (if this be the same word as Zdzim), murmurers.' *
SchwaWy {Lebe7i nach d. Tode, 64 f., and more fully ZATW, xviii. 127 fF.)
has given reasons to show that all three names originally denoted
spirits of the dead, and afterwards came to be applied to an imaginary
race oi extinct giants, the supposed original inhabitants of the country
(see also Rob. Sm. in Dri. Deut. 40). The tradition with regard to the
Rephaim is too persistent to make this ingenious hypothesis altogether
easy of acceptance. It is unfortunate that on a matter bearing so
closely on the historicity of Gn. 14 the evidence is not more decisive.
8-12. The final battle, and capture of Lot. 9. —

four kings against the five] That the four Eastern kings
should have been all present in person (which is the obvious
meaning- of the narrator) is improbable enough that they ;
should count heads with the petty kinglets of the Pentapolis

is an unreal and misleading estimate of the opposing forces,
due to a desire to magnify Abram's subsequent achievement.

— 10. The vale of Siddim was at that time wells upon wells of
bitumen] The notice is a proof of intelligent popular reason-
ing rather than of authentic information regarding actual
facts. The Dead Sea was noted in antiquity for the pro-
duction of bitumen, masses of which were found floating on

the surface (Strabo, xvi. ii. 42 ; Diod. ii. 48, xix. 98
Pliny, vii. 65), as, indeed, they still are after earthquakes,
but *'only in the southern part of the sea" (Robinson,
BRy i. 518, ii. 189, 191). It was a natural inference that
the bottom of the sea was covered with asphalt wells, like
those of Hit in Babylonia. Seetzen (i. 417) says that the
bitumen oozes from rocks round the sea, *'and that (und
zwar) under the surface of the water, as swimmers have felt
and seen " and Strabo says it rose in bubbles like boiling
;
water from the middle of the deepest part. II, 12. Sodom —
and Gomorrah are sacked, and Lot is taken captive. The
10. ni.^! n-1^3] On the nominal appos. and duplication, see Dav. § 29,
R. 8 G-k. § 1 23
; ^ (cf. § 130 e). ffi^L has the word but once. — n"ibj^;] better
as Mx(& 'v ^^CT. r\-y^'\ On the peculiar ^_^ see G-K. §§ 27 y, 90?. — II.
B'pi] <& tinrov {i.e. tyan) ; the confusion appears in ^^* ^^,
but nowhere else
in OT. — 12. D-13X 'nt|-j3] (& inserts the words immediately after d-h, —an
indication that they have been introduced from the margin. It is to be
— — —
XIV. 8-13 265
account leaves mucti to be supplied by the imagination.

The repetition of inp*") and I^P'l in two consecutive sentences
is a mark of inferior style ; but the phrase ^1^^ T'^'l?j which
anticipates the introduction of Abram in v.^^, is probably a
gloss [vJ.).
13-16. Abram's pursuit and victory.— The homeward
march of the victorious army must have taken it very near
—
Hebron, Engedi itself is only about 17 m. off, but Abram —
had Met the legions thunder past,' until the intelligence
reached him of his nephew's danger. 13. Abram the Hebrew]
is obviously meant as the first introduction of Abram in this
narrative. The epithet is not necessarily an anachronism, if
we accept the view that the Habiri of the Tel Amarna period
were the nomadic ancestors of the Israelites (see on loî);
though it is difficult to believe that there were Habiri in
Palestine more than 600 years earlier, in the time of Ham-
murabi (against Sellin, NKZ^ xvi. 936 ; cf. Paton, Syria and
Pal. 39 ff.). That, however, is the only sense in which
Abram could be naturally described as a Hebrew in a
contemporary document and the probability is that the ;
term is used by an anachronistic extension of the later

distinction between Israelites and foreigners. Mavire the
Amorite] see on 13^^. In J (whose phraseology is here
followed) ^^^P'? is the name of the sacred tree or grove in ;
P it is a synonym of Hebron ; here it is the personal name

of the owner of the grove. In like manner ''Eskol is a
personal name derived from the valley of Eshcol ('grape-
cluster,' Nu. 13^^^-) ; and Aner may have a similar
^ origin.
The first two, at all events, are '''•heroes eponynii oi \}[i% most
unequivocal character" (No. Unters. 166), —a misconcep-
tion of which no contemporary would have been capable.*
noted also that Lot elsewhere called simply the brother of Abram
is *
'
^14. ny — Tj^g la^s^ clause is awkwardly placed but considering the style
;
of the chapter, we are not justified in treating- it as an interpolation.

Ezk. 242s 3321 (cf. -\'mr\, 2 Sa. 15^^)^ Yov the idiom, see
13. tt'^sn]
G-K. § 126 r.
— '"iSVC'] ® "^^ irepdry (only here), Aq. r<^ irepatTTj. — n^y] xxx
* Di.'s remark (p. 235), that "it makes no difference whether Mamre
or the (lord) of Mamre helped Abram," is hard to understand. If
— —— '
266 abram's victory
the confederates of Abram (®f o-wcDftoTai)] The expression vV3

nn; does not recur; of. nyîn^ ^^^3, Neh. 6^^. Kraetzschmar's
view {Bundesvorstg. 23 f.), that it denotes the relation of
patrons to client, is inherently improbable. That these men
joined Abram in his pursuit is not stated, but is presupposed
in V.2*, —another example of the writer's laxity in narration.
— 14. As soon as Abram learns the fate of his brother (i.e.
*
relative '), he called up his trained men (? on PT1_ and 1''^^3n, :
v.i.) and gave chase. three hundred and eighteen^ The num-
ber cannot be an arbitrary invention, and is not likely to be
historical. It is commonly explained as a piece of Jewish
Gematriay 318 being the numerical value of the letters of
"iTri?X R. §43: see Nestle, ET, xvii. 44 f. [cf.
(15^) {Ber.
139 f.]). A
inodem Gematria finds in it the number of the
days of the moon's visibility during the lunar year (Wi. GI^
ii. 27). to Dan] Now Tell el-Kadi, at the foot of Hermon.
D"i3y, (Sr Ai^vai/. — 14. p"3;i] Lit. 'emptied out,' used of the unsheathing-
of a sword (Ex. 15^ Lv. 26^^, Ezk. 5^* ^^ etc.), but never with pers. obj. as
here. Tu. cites the Ar. ârrada, which means both ' unsheath a sword
and detach a company from an army
* (see Lane) but this is no real
' ;
analogy, juu. has (Aram.). (& rjpld/xTjaep (so 5J) and C"-*
P1l\=-' scrutinize
'
)m (* equip ' : so ^ nothing, as they may be conjectural.

and CJ) settle
Wi. {AOF, i. 102^) derives from Ass. dtku=* call up troops' so Sellin, ;
937. Ball changes to i'pS"l. I'^'^D] air. Xey., (K tovs idiovs, U expeditos,
5t2r^ * young men.' The j^/ IJn suggests the meaning 'initiated' (see
on 4"), hence 'trained,' 'experienced,' etc. Sellin (937) compares
the word ânakuka = thy men,' found in one of the Ta'annek tablets.
'
If it comes direct from the ceremony of rubbing the palate of a new-born

child (see p.116), it may have nothing to do with war, but denote
simply those belonging to the household, the precise equivalent of
n:3 n^;. The latter phrase is found only in P (i7^2f. 23. 27^ l^^ 22")
Mamre and Eshcol were really names of places, and the writer took
them for names of individual men, the fact has the most important
bearing on the question of the historicity of the record. The alternative
theory, that the names were originally those of persons, and were after-
wards transferred to the places owned or inhabited by them, will hardly
bear examination. 'Grape-cluster' is a suitable name for a valley,
but not for a man. And does any one suppose that J would have re-
corded Abram's settlement at Hebron in the terms of I3^^ if he had
been aware that Mamre was an individual living at the time ? Yet the
Yahwist's historical knowledge is far less open to suspicion than that
of the writer of ch. 14. ^
—
XIV. I4-I8 267
This name originated in the period of the Judges (Jos. 19^^,

Ju. 18^^); and it is singular that such a prolepsis should
occur in a document elsewhere so careful of the appearance
of antiquity. — 15. He divided himself \ i.e. (as usually under-
stood) into three bands, — the favourite tactical manoeuvre
in Hebrew wârfare (Ju. 7^^ i Sa. 11^^ 13^^, Jb. i^'^, i Mac.
533J
. but see the footnote. smote them^ and pursued thetn as
far as Hohah\ Hobah (cf. Jth. 15^) has been identified by
Wetzstein with Hoba, c. 20 hours' journey N of Damascus.
Sellin (934) takes it to be the Ubi of the TA Tablets, the
district in which Damascus was situated {KIB^ v. 139, 63 ;
146, 12). The pursuit must in any case have been a long
one, since Damascus itself is about 15 hours from Dan. It
is idle to pretend that Abram's victory was merely a surprise

attack on the rearguard, and the recovery of part of the
booty. A pursuit carried so far implies the rout of the main
body of the enemy.
Abram and Melkizedek. **The scene be-
17, 18-20.
—
tween Abram and Melkizedek is not without poetic charm :
the two ideals which were afterwards to be so

(Grosse)
intimately united, the holy people and the holy city, are
here brought together for the first time here for the first :
time Israel receives the gift of its sanctuary" (Gu. 253).

17. The scene of the meeting is ni^ ppv, interpreted as the
kin^s vale. A place of this name is mentioned in 2 Sa. 18^^
as the site of Absalom's pillar, which, according to Josephus

{Ant. vii. 243), was two stadia from Jerusalem. The situa-
tion harmonises with the common view that Salem is
Jerusalem (see below) and other information does not

;
exist. — 18. MelkUedek, king of âlem, etc.] The primitive

and Jer. 2^*. —
15. pht)'S\ (cf. i Ki. iS"^^). The sense g-Iven above is not
altogether natural. Ball emends p3"]!l. Wi. {GI, ii. 27^) suggests a pre-
carious Ass. etymologfy, pointing as Piel, and rendering 'and he fell
—
upon them by night': so Sellin. '?Nbij'p] Lit. 'on the left.' The sense
'north' is rare Jos. 19^7 (P), Ezk. 16^*^, Jb. 2f.
:
17- (without art.) must apparently be a different word from

'*'."!^
that in v.'. Hommel and Wi. emend 'i?' {sarre, the Ass. word for
'king'). —
18. pnv-'3^p] usually explained as 'King of Righteousness'
(Heb. 7^), with i as old gen. ending retained by the annexion ; but
more probably = My king is Zidk,' Ziclk being the name of a S
*
— —
268 abram's victory
combination of the kingly and priestly offices has been

abundantly illustrated by Frazer from many quarters.*
The existence of such priest-kings in Canaan in very early
times is though not historically attested
perfectly credible,
(comp. the patesis of Babylonia). Salem is usually under-
stood to be an archaic name for Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. i. i8o;
^°^, Jer. {Qu\ lEz. al.), as in Ps. 76^ the only other place
where it occurs. The chief argument in favour of this view
is the typical significance attached to Melkizedek in
Ps. lo^ which is hardly intelligible except on the supposi-

I
tion that he was in a sense the ideal ancestor of the dynasty

or hierarchy of Jerusalem.
Whether the name was actually in use in ancient times, we do not
know. The Tel Amarna Tablets have certainly proved that the name
Uru-Salivi is of much greater antiquity than might have been gathered
from the bibUcal statements (Ju. I9^^ i Ch. 11^); but the shortened
form Salem is as yet unattested. It has been suggested that the cunei-
form uru was misread as the determinative for 'city' (see Sellin, 941).
The identifications with other places of the name which have been
discovered e.g. the Salim 8 R. m. from Scythopolis (where, according
to Je. [Ep. ad Evagr.\ the ruins of Melkizedek's palace were to be
—
seen) have no claim to acceptance.
On name Pvy ^^ (God Most High), see below, p. 270 f.

the
—bread and wine] comp. food and drink {akali likart) ' '
provided for an army, etc., in the TA Tablets: KIB, 50^2

207^6 209i2f. 242I6 (Sellin, 938).— 19, 20. The blessing of
Arabian and Phoenician deity (Baudissin, Stud. i. 15; Baethgen,

Beitr. 128). That Zedek was an ancient name for Jerusalem (see
Is. i2i-28, Jer. 31^^50'', Ps. 1 18^^) there is no reason to believe. 19. mi3 —
has two senses in the OT (if, indeed, there be not two distinct roots :
see G-B.i^ s.v.)\ (a) 'create' or 'produce' (Ps. 139^^ Pr. 8^2, Dt. 32'
[? Gn. 4^]) {h) purchase or * acquire by purchase (frequent). The
;
' ' '
idea of bare possession apart from purchase is hardly represented

(? Is. i^) and since the suggestion of purchase is here inadmissible,
;
the sense create *

must be accepted.
' That this meaning can be
established only by late examples is certainly no objection so far as
the present passage is concerned see on 4^. 20. After ^nî, fflc^ ins.
: —
* Studies in the Kingship, 29 ff. " The classical evidence points to
the conclusion that in prehistoric ages, before the rise of the republican
form of government, the various tribes or cities were ruled by kings,
who discharged priestly duties and probably enjoyed a sacred character
as descendants of deities" (p. 31).
;
XIV. i8, 20 269
Melkizedek is poetic in form and partly in language ; but

in meaning it is a liturgical formula rather than a * blessing'
in the proper sense. It lacks entirely the prophetic inter-
pretation of concrete experiences which is the note of the
antique blessing and curse (cf. 2^^' 4^"- g^^^- 2^'^^'^^^-). —
Creator of heaven and earth] so (IrJJ. There is no reason
to tone down the idea to that of mere possession (^", al.);
V. infra. — By payment of the tithe, Abram acknowledges
the legitimacy of Melkizedek's priesthood (Heb.7*), and
bond of a common monotheism uniting them

the religious
at the same time the action was probably regarded as a
precedent for the payment of tithes to the Jerusalem
sanctuary for all time coming (so already in Jub, xiii.
25-27 comp. Gn. 28^2).
:
The excision of the Melkizedek episode (see Wi. GI, ii. 29), which
seems to break the connexion of v.^^ with v.^'^, is a temptingly facile
operation but it is doubtful if it be justified. The designation of
;
Yahwe as 'God Most High in the mouth of Abram (v.^^) is unintellig-

'
ible apart from ^^^•. It may rather have been the writer's object to
bring the three actors on one stage together in order to illustrate
Abram's contrasted attitude to the sacred (Melkizedek) and the secular
(king of Sodom) authority. —
Hommel's ingenious and confident solution
{AHTy which gets rid of the king of Sodom altogether and
158 ff.),
resolves ^'^'^ wholly into an interview between Abram and Melkizedek,

is an extremely arbitrary piece of criticism. Sellin's view (p. 939 f.),
that vv.^^"-^ are original and i'- 21-24 g^j-g Israelitische Wucherung,' is <
simpler and more plausible but it has no more justification than any
;
of the numerous other expedients which are necessary to save the

essential historicity of the narrative.
The mystery which invests the figure of Melkizedek has given rise
to a great deal of speculation both in ancient and modern times. The
Jewish idea that he was the patriarch Shem (2P, Talm. al.) is thought
to be a reaction against mystical interpretations prevalent in the
school of Alexandria (where Philo identified him with the Logos),
which, through Heb. 7^^-, exercised a certain influence on Christian
theology (see Jerome, Ep. ad Evagrium cf. JE, viii. 450). From a ;
critical point of view the question of interest is whether M. belongs

to the sphere of ancient tradition or is a fictitious personage, created
to represent the claims of the post-Exilic priesthood in Jerusalem
(Well. Comp.^ 312). In opposition to the latter view, Gu. rightly
points out that Judaism is not likely to have invented as the prototype
nin\ — jap] only Hos. 11^, Is. 64^ (C5, etc.), Pr. 4*. The etymology is
uncertain, but the view that it is a denom. fr. i:d, 'shield' {pj pj, BDB)
is hardly correct (see Barth. ES^ 4).
270 ABRAM S VICTORY
of the High Priesthood a Canaanitish priest-king, and that all possible

pretensions of the Jerusalem hierarchy were covered by the figure of
Aaron (253). It is more probable that M. is, if not a historical figure,
at least a traditional figure of great antiquity, on whom the monarchy
and hierarchy of Jerusalem based their dynastic and priestly rights.*
To the writer of Ps. 110, M. was *'a type, consecrated by antiquity, to
which the ideal king of Israel, ruling on the same spot, must conform "
(Dri. 167) and even if that Ps. be not pre-Exilic (as Gu. supposes),
;
but as late as the Maccabaean period, it is difficult to conceive that

the type could have originated without some traditional basis. Some —
writers have sought a proof of the historical character of Melkizedek
in a supposed parallel between the dirdTup, dfirjToop, dyeveaXoyrjTos of
Heb. 7^ and a formula several times repeated in letters (Tel Amarna)
of Abdhiba of Jerusalem to Amenophis iv. **
Neither my father nor :
my mother set me in this place the mighty arm of the king estab- ;
lished me in my father's house. " t Abdhiba might have been a

successor of Melkizedek and it is just conceivable that Hommel is
;
right in his conjecture that a religious formula, associated with the

head of the Jerusalem sanctuary, receives from Abd|}iba a political
turn, and is made use of to express his absolute dependence on the
Egyptian king. But it must be observed that Abdhiba's language is
perfectly intelligible in its diplomatic sense its agreement with the ;
words of the NT is only partial, and may be accidental and it is ;
free from the air of mystery which excites interest in the latter. This,
however, is not to deny the probability that the writer to the Hebrews
drew his conception partly from other sources than the w. in Gen.
—
'El Ely on. ^"El, the oldest Semitic appellative for God, was
'
frequently differentiated according to particular aspects of the divine

nature, or particular local or other relations entered into by the deity :
hence arose compound names like ^'n?' Sn (17^), dVij; ?>< (ai^^), '?><)¥'! 'hSn Sn
(3320), SNn'3 Sx (357), and fv^j; •?}< (here and Ps. 7835). J
jyij^;
( = ' upper,'
*
highest ') is not uncommonly used of God in OT, either alone
(Nu. 24'^, Dt. 32^ Ps. 18^^ etc.) or in combinations with mn' or D'n'?N
(Ps. 7^^ (?), 47^ 57^ etc.). That it was in actual use among the
Canaanites is by no means incredible the Phoenicians had a god :
'EXtoDi' KaXotyûevos "Tt/'io-Tos (Eus. Prcep. Ev. i. 10, 11, 12); and there is
nothing to forbid the supposition that the deity of the sanctuary of
Jerusalem was worshipped under that name. On the other hand,
there is nothing to prove it and it is perhaps a more significant fact
;
* Gu. instances as a historical parallel the legal fiction by which
the imperial prestige of the Caesars was transferred to Charlemagne

—
and his successors. Josephus had the same view when he spoke of M.
as Xamvatajj/ hvvd(jT'r\%^ and the first founder of Jerusalem {BJ, vi. 438).
tHomm. AHT, 155 ff.; Sayce, Monn. 175; EHH, 28 f. ; Exp.
Times, vii. 340 flF., 478 ff., 565 f., viii. 43 f., 94 ff., 142 ff. (arts, and
letters by Sayce, Driver, and Hommel).
X See Baethgen, Beitr. 291 f. Comp., — in classical religion, Zeus
MeilichioSy -Xenios, Jupiter Terminus, -Latiaris, etc.
— '
XIV. 17, 21-34 271
that the Maccabees were called dpxcepe^s deoO v^piaTov (Jos. Ant. xvi.
163; Ass. Mosis, 6^).* This title, the frequent recurrence of j'v'?y as a
divine name in late Pss.,the name Salem in one such Ps.,and Melkizedek
in (probably) another, make a group of coincidences which go to show
that the Melkizedek legend was much in vogue about the time of the
Maccabees.
17, 21-24. Abram and the king of Sodom.—The

request of the king" of Sodom presupposes as the usual
custom of war that Abram was entitled to the whole of the
booty. Abram's lofty reply is the climax to which the whole
narrative leads up. 22. —
lift up my hand\ the gesture
/
accompanying an oath (Ex. 6®, Nu. 14^^, Dt. 32*^, Ezk. 20^^,
Dn. \2^ etc.). to Vakwe, El 'Elj'Sn] A recognition of ^
religious affinity with Melkizedek, as a fellow-worshipper

of the one true God. The nin\ however, is probably an
addition to the text, wantingf in ® and <£>> while xxx has
D\"li?Xn. —23. lest thou shouldst sayy etc.] An earlier writer
(cf. 12^^) would perhaps not have understood this scruple :
he would have attributed the enrichment of Abram to God,

even if the medium was a heathen king. 24. The con- —
descending allowance for the weakness of inferior natures
is mentioned to enhance the impression of Abram's
generosity (Gu.).
The Historic Value of Ch, 14. —
There are obvious reasons why
this chapter should have come to be regarded in some quarters as a
* shibboleth between two opposite schools of OT criticism (Homm.
'
AHT, 165).The narrative is unique in this respect, that it sets the

figure of Abraham in the framework of world-history. It isthe case
that certain features of this framework have been confirmed, or
rendered credible, by recent Assyriological discoveries and by those ;
who look to archaeological research to correct the aberrations of

literary criticism, this fact is represented as not only demonstrating
the historicity of the narrative as a whole, but as proving that the
criticism which resolved it into a late Jewish romance must be vitiated
22. 'nb-iq] On the pf., G-K. § 106 /.— 23. On the dn of negative
asseveration, § 149 a, c. The second DXi, which adds force to the
negation, is not rendered by (& or U. — 24. ^11^?^'] lit. * not unto me !
(in Hex. only 41^6. 44 [e]^ Jqs. 22^^ [late]). (SUcSEO seem to have read
p"5 "l^b^ as a compound prepositional phrase ( = except '). *
* Siegfried, ThLz.y 1895, 304. On the late prevalence of the title, see
also DBy iii. 450, EB^ i. 70 (in and near Byblus), and Schiirer, SBBA^
1897, p. 200 ff.
272 HISTORICITY OF
by some radical fault of method. How far that sweeping- conclusion

is justified we have now to consider. The question
raised is one of
extreme difficulty, and is perhaps not yet ripe for final settlement. The
attempt must be made, however, to review once more the chief points
of the evidence, and to ascertain as fairly as possible the results to
which it leads.
The case for trustworthiness of the story (or the
the historic
antiquity of the source on which it is founded) rests on the following
facts: (i) The occurrence of prehistoric names of places and peoples,

some of which had become unintelligible to later readers, and required
identification by explanatory glosses. Now the mere use of ancient
and obsolete names is not m
itself inconsistent with the fictitious
character of the narrative. A writer who was projecting himself into a
remote past would naturally introduce as many archaic names as he
could find and the substitution of such terms as Rephaim, Emim,
;
Horim, etc., for the younger populations which occupied these regions,
is no more than might be expected. Moreover, the force of the
argument is weakened by the undoubted anachronism involved in the
use of the name Dan (see on v.^^). The presence of archaeological
glosses, however, cannot be disposed of in this way. To suppose that
a writer deliberately introduced obsolete or fictitious names and glossed
them, merely for the purpose of casting an air of antiquity over his
narrative, is certainly a somewhat extreme hypothesis. It is fair to
admit the presumption that he had really before him some traditional
(perhaps documentary) material, though of what nature that material
—
was it is impossible to determine.* (2) The general verisimilitude of
the background of the story. It is proved beyond question that an
Elamite supremacy over the West and Palestine existed before the year
2000 B.C. consequently an expedition such as is here described is
;
(broadly speaking) within the bounds of historic probability. Further,

the state of things in Palestine presupposed by the record a number of —
petty kingships striving to maintain their independence, and entering
into temporary alliances for that purpose —
harmonises with all we know
of the political condition of the country before the Israelitish occupation,
though it might be difficult to show that the writer's knowledge of the
situation exceeds what would be acquired by the most cursory perusal
of the story of the Conquest in the Book of Joshua. —
(3) The considera-
tion most relied upon by apologetic writers is the proof obtained from
Assyriology that the names in v.^ are historical. The evidence on this
question has been given on p. 257 ff., and need not be here recapitulated.
* It is to be observed that in no single case is the correctness of the

gloss attested by independent evidence (see vv.^' ^ ^' '• ^- ^''). Those who
maintain the existence of a cuneiform original have still to reckon with
the theory of Wi., who holds that the basis of the narrative is a
Babylonian legend, which was brought into connexion with the story of
Abraham by arbitrary identification of names whose primary significance
was perhaps mythological. See G7, ii. 28 The question cannot be
flf.
further discussed here.

—'
CH. XIV 273

We have seen that every one of the identifications is disputed by
more than one competent Assyriolog-ist (see, further, Mey. GA^, i. ii.
p. 551 f.); and since only an expert is fully qualified to judge of the
probabilities of the case, it is perhaps premature to regard the confirma-
tion as assured. At the same time, it is quite clear that the names
are not invented and it is highly probable that they are those of
;
contemporary kings who actually reigned over the countries assigned

to them in this chapter. Their exact relations to one another are still
undetermined, and in some respects difficult to imagine but there is ;
nothing in the situation which we may not expect to be cleared up by

further discoveries. It would seem to follow that the author's informa-
tion derived ultimately either from a Babylonian source, or from
is
records preserved amongst the Canaanites in Palestine. The presence

of an element of authentic history in v.' being thus admitted, we have to
inquire how far this enters into the substance of the narrative.
Before answering that question, we must look at the arguments
advanced in favour of the late origin and fictitious character of the
chapter. These are of two kinds (i) The inherent improbability or
:
incredibility of many of the incidents recorded. This line of criticism was

most fully elaborated by Noldeke in 1869 {Untersuchungen, 156-172):
the following points may be selected as illustrations of the difficulties
which the narrative presents. {a) The route said to have been
traversed not absolutely impracticable for a regular army, at
is, if least
quite irreconcilable with the alleged object of the campaign, — the
chastisement of the Pentapolis. That the four kings should have
passed the Dead Sea valley, leaving their principal enemies in their
rear,and postponing a decisive engagement till the end of a circuitous
and exhausting march, is a proceeding which would be impossible in real
warfare, and could only have been imagined by a writer out of touch
with the actualities of the situation (see the Notes on p. 261). (6) It is
difficult to resist the impression that some of the personal names
especially Berd and Birshd (see on v.^), and Mamre and Eshcol (v.^^)
— are artificial formations, which reveal either the animus of the writer,
or else (in the last two instances) a misapprehension of traditional data
into which only a very late and ill-informed writer could have been
betrayed, {c) The rout of Chedorlaomer's army by 318 untrained men
is generally admitted to be incredible. It is no sufficient explanation to
say that only a rearguard action may have taken place the writer ;
does not mean that and if his meaning misrepresents what actually
;
took place, his account is at any rate not historical (see p. 267). {d) It
appears to be assumed in v.^ that the Dead Sea was formed subsequently
to the events narrated. This idea seems to have been traditional in
Israel (cf. 13^"), but it is nevertheless quite erroneous. Geological
evidence proves that that amazing depression in the earth's surface had
existed for ages before the advent of man on the earth, and formed,
from the first, part of a great inland lake whose waters stood originally
several hundred feet higher than the present level of the Dead Sea. It
may, indeed, be urged that the vale of Siddim was not coextensive
with the Dead Sea basin, but only with its shallow southern Lagoon *
18
274 HISTORICITY OF
(S of el-Lisdn), which by a partial subsidence of the ground might have

been formed within historic times.* But even if that were the true
explanation, the manner of the statement is not that which would be
used by a writer conversant with the facts. The improbabilities of the —
passage are not confined to the four points just mentioned, but are
spread over the entire surface of the narrative and while their force ;
may be differently estimated by different minds, it is at least safe to say

that they more than neutralise the impression of trustworthiness which
the precise dates, numbers, and localities may at first produce. (2) The —
second class of considerations is derived from the spirit and tendency
which characterise the representation, and reveal the standpoint of the
writer. It would be easy to show that many of the improbabilities
observed spring from a desire to enhance the greatness of Abraham's
achievement and indeed the whole tendency of the chapter is to set
;
the figure of the patriarch in an ideal light, corresponding not to the

realities of history, but to the imagination of some later age. Now the
idealisation of the patriarchs is, of course, common to all stages of
tradition ; the question what period this ideal picture of Abraham
is to
may be most plausibly referred. The answer given by a number of
critics is that it belongs to the later Judaism, and has its affinities "with
P and the midrashic elements in Chronicles rather than with the older
Israelite historians" (Moore, EB, ii. 677). Criticism of this kind is
necessarily subjective and speculative. At first sight it might appear

that the conception of Abraham as a warlike hero is the mark of a
warlike age, and therefore older than the more idyllic types delineated
in the patriarchal legends. That judgement, however, fails to take
account of the specific character of the narrative before us. It is a
grandiose and lifeless description of military operations which are quite
beyond the writer's range of conception it contains no trace of the ;
martial ardour of ancient times, and betrays considerable ignorance of

the conditions of actual warfare it is essentially the account of a
;
Bedouin razzia magnified into a systematic campaign for the consolida-

tion of empire. It has been fitly characterised as the product of a time
which "admires military glory all the more because it can conduct no
wars itself and, having no warlike exploits to boast of in the present,
;
revels in the mighty deeds of its ancestors. Such narratives tend in

imagination towards the grotesque the lack of the political experience
;
which is to be acquired only in the life of the independent state produces

a condition of mind which can no longer distinguish between the
possible and the impossible. Thus the passage belongs to an age in
which, in spite of a certain historical erudition, the historic sense of
Judaism had sunk almost to zero " (Gu. 255).
It remains to consider the extent and origin of the historic element
whose existence in the chapter we have been led to admit. Does it

proceed from an ancient Canaanite record, which passed into the Hebrew
tradition, to be gradually moulded into the form in which we now find
* Cf. Dri.'s elaborate Note, p. 168 ff. ; also Robinson, BR, ii. 187 f. ;
Gautier, EB, 1043 f., 1046; Hull, DB, i. 576''.

CH. XIV 275
it? Or did it come directly from an external source into the hands of a
late author, who used it as the basis of a sort of historical romance ?
The former alternative is difficult to maintain if (as seems to be the case)
the narrative stands outside the recognised literary sources of the
Pentateuch.* The most acceptable form of this theory is perhaps that
presented by Sellin in the article to which reference has frequently been
made in the preceding pages {NKZ, xvi. 929-951). The expedition, he
thinks, may have taken place at any time between 2250 and 1750 B.C. ;
and he allows a long period of oral transmission to have elapsed before

the preparation of a cuneiform record about 1500. This document he
supposes to have been deposited in the Temple archives of Jerusalem,
and to have come into the possession of the Israelites through David's
conquest of that city. He thus leaves room for a certain distortion of
events in the primary document, and even for traces of mythological
influence. The theory would gain immensely in plausibility if the
alleged Canaanite parallels to the obscure expressions of vv."'- (pn, TJn,
pSn) should prove to be relevant. At present, however, they are not
known to be specifically Canaanite and whatever be their value it
;
does not appear that they tell more in favour of a Palestinian origin
than of a cuneiform basis in general. The assumption that the docu-
ment was deposited in the Temple is, of course, a pure hypothesis, on
which nothing as to the antiquity or credibility of the narrative can be
based.
On the other hand, the second alternative has definite support in a
fact not sufficiently regarded by those who defend the authenticity of the
chapter. It is significant that the cuneiform document in which three
of the four royal names in v.^ are supposed to have been discovered is as
late as the 4th or 3rd cent. B.C. Assuming the correctness of the
identifications, we have here a positive proof that the period with
which our story deals was a theme of poetic and legendary treatment in
the age to which criticism is disposed approximately to assign the
composition of Gn. 14. It shows that a cuneiform document is not
necessarily a contemporary document, and need not contain an accurate
transcript of fact. If we suppose such a document to have come into
the possession of a Jew of the post-Exilic age, it would furnish just such
a basis of quasi-historical material as would account for the blending of
fact and fiction which the literary criticism of the chapter suggests. In
any case the extent of the historical material remains undetermined.
The names in v.^ are historical some such expedition to the West as is
;
here spoken of is possibly so but everything else belongs to the region

;
of conjecture. The particulars in which we are most interested the —

figures of Abram and Lot and Melkizedek, the importance, the revolt,
and even the existence, of the Cities of the Kikkar, and, in short, all
—
the details of the story are as yet unattested by any allusion in secular
history.
In conclusion, it should be noticed that there is no real antagonism
between archaeology and literary criticism in this matter. They deal
* P. 256 above.
— ;
276 THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM (je)
with quite distinct aspects of the problem and the fallacy lies in treat-
;
ing the chapter as a homogeneous and indivisible unity it is like dis-:
cussing whether the climate of Asia is hot or cold on conflicting evidence

drawn from opposite extremes of the continent. Criticism claims to
have shown that the narrative is full of improbabilities in detail which
make impossible to accept it as a reliable contemporary record of fact.
it
All that the archaeologist can pretend to have proved is that the general
setting of the story is consistent with the political situation in the East
as disclosed by the monuments and that it contains data which canriot
;
possibly be the fabrications of an unhistorical age. So much as this

critics are perfectly prepared to admit. No., who has stated the case
against the authenticity of the chapter as strongly as any man, ex-
pressly declined to build an argument on the fact that nothing was then
known of an Elamite dominion in the West, and allowed that the names
of the four kings might be traditional {op. cit. isgf.).* Assyriology has
hardly done more as yet than make good the possibilities thus conceded
in advance. It is absurd to suppose that a theory can be overthrown
by facts for which due allowance was made before they took rank as
actual discoveries.
Ch. XV. God^s Covenant with Abram (JE).
In a prolonged interview with Yah we, Abram's mis-

givings regarding the fulfilment of the divine promises are
removed by solemn and explicit assurances, and by a symbolic
act in which the Almighty binds Himself by the inviolable
ceremonial of the berith.\ In the present form of the chapter
there is a clear division between the promise of a son and heir
(^"^)and the promise of the land ('^~^^), the latter alone being
strictly embraced in the scope of the covenant.
Analysis. —
See, besides the comm., We. Comp.^ 23 f. Bu. Urg. 416^
;
Bacon, Hebraica, vii. 75 ff. Kraetzschmar, op. cit. 58 ff. The chapter
; —
shows unmistakable signs of composition, but the analysis is beset with
peculiar, and perhaps insurmountable, difficulties. We may begin by
* The same admission was made by We. as long ago as 1889
{Comp.^ 3io)- view of the persistent misrepresentations of critical
Iri
opinion, it is not unnecessary to repeat once more that the historicity of

the names in v.^ has not been denied by any leading critic {e.g. Ew.
No. Di. We.), even before the discoveries of later years. For an —
exposure of Sayce's extraordinary travesty of Noldeke's arguments,
the reader should consult Dri. Gen.'^, Addenda to p. 173.
t "Die Berith ist diejenige kultische Handlung, durch die in feierlicher
Weise Verpflichtungen oder Abmachungen irgend welcher Art absolut
bindend und unverbriichlich gemacht wurden *' (Kraetzschmar, Bundes-
vorstellung, 40 f.).
XV. I
277
examining the solution proposed by Gu.
10. 12aot. b. 17. 18a. h^ to
He assigns '*•*
V ^- ^^' *• ^- ^•
lâ/g. 3a. fSb?] 5. 11. 12a^. 13a. 14

J ; (^-q ^^j^,). 16 (.q jt .
^^d '• »•
I3b.i4b^.i5.i8b^. 19-21
to a redactor. On
analysis the J fragments this
form a consecutive and nearly complete narrative, the break at v.'
being caused by R's insertion of "• But (i) it is not so easy to get
rid of "^^ V.8 is, and ^ is not, a suitable point of contact for ^^- ; and
the omission of would make the covenant a confirmation of the
'^-
promise of an whereas ^^ expressly restricts it to the possession of

heir,
the land. And (2) the parts assigned to J contain no marks of the
Yahwistic style except the name nin' ; they present features not else-
where observed in that document, and are coloured by ideas character-
istic of the Deuteronomic age. The following points may be here noted :
(a) the prophetic character of the divine communication to Abram {}- ^) ;
{b) the address ni,T >jik (2* [cf.s]) ;

(c) the theological reflexion on the
nature of Abram's righteousness (^ : cf. Dt. 6^^ 24^^) {d) the idea of the
;
Abrahamic covenant (found only in redactional expansions of JE, and

common in Dt.) to which may be added {e) the ideal boundaries of the
;
land and the enumeration of its inhabitants (i8b-2i^^ both of which are
Deuteronomistic (see on the vv. below). The ceremonial of ^^- " is no
proof of antiquity (cf. Jer. 34^^^-)> ^"d the symbolic representation of
Yahwe's presence in " is certainly not decisive against the late author-
ship of the piece (against Gu.). It is difficult to escape the impression
that the whole of this J narrative (including ''^•) is the composition of an
editor who used the name T\^r\\ but whose affinities otherwise are with
the school of Deuteronomy rather than with the early Yahwistic writers.
—This however, still leaves unsolved problems, (i) It fails to
result,
account for the obvious doublets in ^- ^ ^b ^^^ 3a g^j-g generally recog-
nised as the first traces in the Hex. of the document E, and ^ (a night
scene in contrast to ^^- 1'^) is naturally assigned to the same source. (2)
With regard to t^^?] 13-16^ which most critics consider to be a redactional
expansion of J, I incline to the opinion of Gu., that "• is-i^ form part of
the sequel to the E narrative recognised in 3a. 2b. 5 (note nDN.i, v.^^). (3)
The renewed introduction of Yah we in v.' forms a hiatus barely con-
sistent with unity of authorship. The difficulty would be partly met by
Bacon's suggestion that the proper position of the J material in ^'^ is
intermediate between 15^^ and i6^ But though this ingenious theory
removes one difficulty it creates others, and it leaves untouched what
seems to me the chief element of the problem, the marks of lateness both
in ^"^ and '"î. —
The phenomena might be most fully explained by the
assumption of an Elohistic basis, recast by a Jehovistic or Deuteronomic
editor (probably RJ^), and afterwards combined with extracts from its
own original but so complex a hypothesis cannot be put forward
;
with any confidence.
1-6. The promise of an heir (J), and a numerous

posterity (E). — l. The v. presupposes a situation of
I. n'?Nn Dnmn [']nnN] frequent in E (22^ 40^ 48^, Jos.

24^9), but also
used by J (222° 39'').— nin'-njn ry\;) (cf. v.*)] not elsewhere in the Hex. ;
— —
anxiety on the part of Abram, following on some meri-

torious action performed by him. It is not certain that any
was present to the mind of the
definite set of circumstances
writer,though the conditions are fairly well satisfied by
Abram's defenceless position amongst the Canaanites im-
mediately after his heroic obedience to the divine call (Gu.).
The attempts to establish a connexion with the events of
ch. 14 (Jewish Comm. and a few moderns) are far-fetched
and misleading. the word of Yahwe came] On the formula
va. The conceptionof Abram as a prophet has no parallel
in J ; and even E, though he speaks vaguely of Abram as a
55^33 (20^, q.v.), does not describe his intercourse with God
in technical prophetic phraseology. The representation is
not likely to have arisen before the age of written prophecy.

— in a vzsion] probably a night-vision (see v.^), in which case
the expression must be attributed to E. The mediate
character of revelation, as contrasted with the directness of
the older theophanies {e.^. ch. 18), is at all events character-
istic of E. t/i}' shield] a figure for protection common in
later writings: Dt. 332^, Ps. 3* y^^ oft., Pr. 2^ ^d'.—thy

reward [will be] very great] a new sentence (^S)j not (as }J,
—
EV) a second predicate to ^^bx. 2. seeing I go hence childless]
found occasionally in the older writings (i Sa. 15^°, 2 Sa. 24^^), but
chiefly in later prophets and superscriptions specially common in Jer. :
and Ezk.—ntqp] Only Nu. 24^- ^^ Ezk. 13''. The word is thus not at
all characteristic of E, thoug-h the idea of revelation through dreams
and visions (nx-ip, Nu. 12^ ^hy^ nx-ie, Gn. 46^) undoubtedly is. Consider-
;
ing the many traces of late editing in the chapter, it is highly

precarious to divide the phrases of v.' between J and E. nann (inf. —
abs.) as pred. is unusual and late (Ps. 130^, Ec. 11^). ux na^N, *I will
multiply,' is perhaps preferable. —
2. ni,T 'jik] (cf. ^) is common in the
elevated style of prophecy (esp. Ezk.), but rare in the Pss. In the
historical books it occurs only as a vocative (exc. i Ki. 2^'°) Jos. 7', Ju. :
622 1 628^ _ Dt. 324 926, 2 Sa. 718- i«- 20. 28. 29^ , Ki. 8^3. Of these the first
three are possibly J the rest are Deuteronomic.
; —
niy''?N— pi] ffi has 6 5^
v\h<i Mdcre/c t^s oiKO'yevov'i /xov, oOros AafiacTKos 'EXt^ê/j, a meaningless sen- —
tence in the connexion, unless supplemented by Kk-qpovoix-qaei /xe, as in some
MSS of Philo (before oSros). S paraphrases : ] - omnVn ;^ ;] v . V|n
Li^ 001 *-jAjl-0 ;.^.
fc..*.-^ pc'D is a air. Xe7., which appears not to
have been understood by any of the Vns. CBr treats it as the name of
Eliezer's mother, Aq, (ttot/ôi'tos) as = ni3^D; 9U^'-*J give it the sense

—
XV. 2-5 279
So all Vns., taking "Hpn in the sense of 'die' (Ps. 39^^:

cf. Ar. halakci)^ though the other sense
(* walk = live ') ' '
would be quite admissible. To die childless and leave no

name on earth (Nu. 27^) is a fate so melancholy that even
the assurance of present fellowship with God brings no hope
or joy. —2b is absolutely unintelligible {yd.). The Vns.
agree in reading the names Eliezer and Damascusy and
also (with the partial exception of fflr) in the general under-
standing that the clause is a statement as to Abram's heir.

This is probably correct ; but the text is so corrupt that
even the proper names are doubtful, and there is only a
presumption that the sense agrees with ^^ 3. In the —
absence of children or near relatives, the slave, as a member
of the family, might inherit (Sta. GVIy i. 391 ; Benzinger,
Arch.'^ 113)- ^^?"I? is a member of the household, but not
necessarily a home-born slave (n^S 1y^, 14^*). — 5. The promise
of a numerous '
seed' (cf. ^^- ^^) is E's parallel to the announce-
ment of the birth of a bodily heir in J (v.*). the stars] a
favourite image of the later editors and Deuteronomy (22^'^
of steward,' which may be a mere conjecture like the (rvyyevTi^ of S.

*
Modern comm. generally regard the word as a modification of ^g'p

(Jb. 28^^?) with the sense of 'possession' ^B'D"f3 = *son of possession — '
= possessor' or 'inheritor' (so Ges. Tu. KS. Str. al.) ; but this has
*
neither philological justification nor traditional support. A sj pB'D (in

spite of p^pp, Zeph. 2^) is extremely dubious. The last clause cannot be
rendered either This is Eliezer of Damascus,' or This is Damascus,
* *
namely Eliezer' (De.). & and ®o adopt the summary expedient of

turning the subst. into an adj., and reading 'Eliezer the Damascene*
(similarly '0 'E/3p. in Field). It is difficult to imagine what Damascus
can have to do here at all and if a satisfactory sense for the previous
;
words could be obtained, it would be plausible enough (with Hitz. Tu.

KS. al.) to strike out p^^"^. [nih] as a stupid gloss on pB'p, Ball's emenda-
tion, ijv;'^^ P?''?'!!'!! *<'7 ''n'S p^'Oi, and he who will possess my house is a
*
Damascene — Eliezer,' is 'ja with the name of a

plausible, but the sing,
city is contrary toHeb. idiom. Bewer {JBL, 1908, pt. 2, 160 ff.) has
—
proposed the reading ingenious but not convincing yn? "h pN 'riif'pa D':^?. —
2» and ^ are parallels (note the double 'k nON'i), of which the former
obviously belongs to the latter consequently to E. Since ^^ is J rather

J,
than E (cf. vix with follows that ^*- ^ must be transposed if the
v.*), it
latter be E's parallel to ^^ —

3. t^T] in the sense of 'be heir to' cf. 21^^ :
(E), 2 Sa. 14', Jer. 49^, Pr. 30^^.-4. ^'i'DD {<& ?I?P?)] of the father, 2 Sa.
71-2 16I1, Is. 48!^; of the mother, 25^3 (J), Is. 49I, Ru. i^\ Ps. 71". -5.
is. 15. is
n:iinn] in J, 19" 242^ 3912- (jos. 2^'^?) ; but also Dt. 24" 25^ etc.—
:;
28o THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM (je)
26S Ex. 32^3, Dt. 1^0 io22 2862)._6. coutited it (his implicit
trust in the character of Yahvve) as nghteousness\ i Mac. 2^^.
ni^ny is here neither inherent moral character, nor piety in

the subjective sense, but a right relation to God conferred
by a divine sentence of approval (see We. Pss., SBOT, 174).
This remarkable anticipation of the Pauline doctrine of justification

by faith (Ro. 4^* ^' ^^ Gal. 3^ cf. Ja. 2^^) must, of course, be understood
;
in the light of OT conceptions. The idea of righteousness as de-

pendent on a divine judgment (û'n) could only have arisen on the basis
of legalism, while at the same time it points beyond it. It stands later
in theological development than Dt. 6-^ 24^^, and has its nearest
analogies in Ps. 106^^ 24^ The reflexion is suggested by the question
how Abram, who had no law to fulfil, was nevertheless righteous '
'
and, finding the ground of his acceptance in an inward attitude towards

God, it marks a real approximation to the Apostle's standpoint. Gu.
(161) well remarks that an early writer would have given, instead of
this abstract proposition, a concrete illustration in which Abram's faith
came to light.
7-21. The covenant. —

7, 8. The promise of the land,
Abram's request for a pledge (ct. v.^), and the self-introduc-
tion of Yah we (which would be natural only at the com-
mencement of an interview), are marks of discontinuity
difficult to reconcile with the assumption of the unity of the
narrative. Most critics accordingly recommend the excision

of the vv. as an interpolation.
So Di. KS. Kraetzschmar, Gu. al. Their genuineness is maintained
by Bu. De. Bacon, Ho. We. thinks they have been at least worked
;
over. The language certainly is hardly Yahwistic. The ':n (') is not
a sufficient ground for rejection (see Bu. 439) and although D'ib'd niN in
;
a J-context may be suspicious, we have no right to assume that it did

not occur in a stratum of Yahwistic tradition (see p. 239 above). But
nriE'n'? —
nn'? is a decidedly Deuteronomic phrase (see OH, i. 205) on 'nK:
ni.T, see on v.'^. On the theory of a late recension of the whole passage
these linguistic difficulties would vanish but the impression of a change
;
—
of scene remains, an impression, however, which the interpolation
theory does not altogether remove, since the transition from * to " is
very abrupt. Bacon's transposition of the two sections of J is also
unsatisfactory.
6. poxm] (on the tense, see Dri. T. § 133; G-K. § 1125^): (!&F<S add
D"J??<- The construction with 5 is usual when the obj. of faith is God
(Ex. 1431, Nu. 14I1 20I2, Dt. iK 2 Ki. if\ 2 Ch. 20^0, Ps. 78^2, Jon. 3^)
\ only Dt. 9^^, Is. 43^". —
niji^] second obj. ace. The change to '?^ (Ps,
106^^) is unnecessary.
— — —
XV. 6-12 28l
9, 10. The preparations for the covenant ceremony on ;
which see below, p. 283. Although not strictly sacrificial,*

the operation conforms to later Levitical usage in so far as
the animals are all such as were allowed in sacrifice, and
the birds are not divided (Lv. i^"^). of three years old] This
is obviously the meaning of C'^rD here (cf. i Sa. i^* [(^]:
elsewhere = threefold,' Ezk. 42^, Ec. which renders
4^^). 21^°,
'
three' (calves, etc.), is curiously enough the only Vn. that
misses the sense ; and it is followed by Ber, R., Ra. al. On
the number OT, see Stade, ZATW, xxvi.
three in the
124 ff. [esp. 127 f.]. —
II. The descent of the unclean birds of
prey (t^^V), and Abram's driving them away, is a sacrificial
omen of the kind familiar to antiquity.! The interpreta-
tion seems to follow in ^^"^^ (Di. Gu.).— 12. ^9"^.")^? (^ cKcrrao-ts)
is the condition most favourable for the reception of visions
(see on 2^^). a great horror] caused by the approach of the
deity (omit HD.t/'n as a gloss). The text is mixed (see below),
and the two representations belong, the one to J, and the
other to E (Gu.).The scene is a vivid transcript of primitive
religious experience. The bloody ceremony just described
was no perfunctory piece of symbolism it touched the mind ;
below the level of consciousness and that impression

;
(heightened in this case by the growing darkness) induced a

susceptibility to psychical influences readily culminating in
ecstasy or vision. — 13-16. An oracle in which is unfolded
the destiny of Abram's descendants to the 4th generation.
It is to be noted that the prediction relates to the fortunes
(i^)
of Abram's *seed,' the mention of the land being in-
9. ^nj] Dt. 32"! = young of the vulture; but here = * young dove' ;
Ar. gauzal'y Syr. >\^.0l. — 10. "i?5;i] a technical term ; the vb. only here ;
cf. nri|, Jer. 34^8- i^— ima] ux mna (inf. abs.).— 'ui niî V'v] cf. 9**; G-K.
§ 139 c. — II. D'"lJ?n] (&.^ TCL cru}fj.a,Ta tcl dLXOTOfnfifiara ; a conflation of
Dnjsn and D'^^^^ri (v.^'). 2^V}.] Hiph. of 2v: only here in the sense of *
scare
away ' : so Aq. {aTread^rjcrev) SU. C^ read 2>î\, which is less expressive
—
;
and aSc DON 2i^!,\ is quite inadmissible.— 12. nuV \Ti] G-K. § ii4«; cf.
* So in the covenant between A§ur-niriri and Mati'ilu (MVAG, iii.
228 if.), the victim is expressly said not to be a sacrifice,

t Comp. Virg. Aen. iii. 225 ff.
— — ;
direct and incidental. The passage may therefore be the

continuation of the E-sections of ^~^, on the understanding
that in E the covenant had to do with the promise of a seed,
and not with the possession of the land. 13. a sojourner] —
(coll.): see on 12^^. ^00 years] agreeing approximately
with the 430 years of Ex. 12*^ (P). — 15 is a parenthesis, if
not an interpolation, reassuring Abram as to his own

personal lot (see on 25^). — 16. ^ke fourth generation] e.g.
Levi, Kohath, Amram, Aaron (or Moses) (Ex. 6^^^-). To
the reckoning of a generation as 100 years (cf. v.^^) doubtful
classical parallels are cited by Knobel (Varro, Ling. lat. 6,
II ; Ovid, Met. xii. 188, etc.).* the guilt of the Amorites]

(the inhabitants of Palestine) is frequently dwelt upon in
later writings (Dt. 9^, i Ki. 14^*, Lv. iS^^*- etc. etc.) ; but the
parallels from J E cited by Knobel (Gn. iS^^^- 19^^- 20^^) are
of quite a different character.
Yy 13-16
g^^g obviously out of place in J, because they presuppose ^^
(the promise of the land). They are generally assigned to a redactor,
although it is difficult to conceive a motive for their insertion. Di.'s
suggestion, that they were written to supply the interpretation of the
omen of v.^^, goes a certain distance but fails to explain why the inter-
;
pretation ever came to be omitted. Since ^^ is intimately connected

with ^^'^^ and at the same time has no influence on the account of J, the
natural conclusion is that both ^^ and ^^'^^ are documentary, but that the
document is not J but E (so Gu.). It will be necessary, however, to
delete the phrases Vna E?p-i3 in ^^ and nîo n^'E'? n3|3Pi in ^^ as characteristic
of the style of perhaps also nj^ nixD y31>< in ^^ The whole of ^^ may
P ;
be removed with advantage to the sense. The text of ^^ is not homo- —

geneous, so that as a whole it cannot be linked either with ^^ or with ^^^•.
'ui no-n-ini and 'ui no'N n^ni are doublets (note the repetition of h]} ^£33)
and the poetic nasj'n (only here in Pent.) is doubtless a gloss to rio-n.
The opening clause huS 'lyn 'np. is presumably J (in E it is already night
in v.°). E's partiality for the yisionary mode of revelation may be
assigning the nmin to him and the no'K to J ;
sufficient justification for
but the choice is immaterial.
Jos. 2' (J). — 13. Dnayi] (& pr. /cat KaKiJjaoviXLv air. ; and apparently read
D^ '^3i;l, avoiding the awkward interchange of subj. and obj. — 16. nm
'^'m] ace. of condition, 'as a fourth generation' (cf. Jer. 31^); G-K.
§ iiS^r.
* Cf. We. Prol.^ 308 (Eng. tr. p. 308), who cites these w. as positive
proof that the generation was reckoned as 100 years (see p. 135 above),
— a view which, of course, cannot be held unless vv.^^"^^ are a unity.
— —
XV. I3-I8 283
17.a smoking oven and a blazing torch] the two together

making an emblem of the theophany, akin to the pillar of
cloud and fire of the Exodus and Sinai narratives (cf. Ex. 3^
ig9 1221 etc.). The oven is therefore not a symbol of
Gehenna reserved for the nations (Ra.). On the appearance —
of the "^lari, see the descriptions and illustrations in Riehm,
HlVb. 178; Benzinger, ArchJ^ 65. passed between these
pieces] cf. Jer. 34^^^- (the only other allusion).
On this rite see Kraetzschmar, op. cit. 44 ff. Althoug-h attested by

only one other OT reference, its prevalence in antiquity is proved by
many analogies in classical and other writers. Its original significance
is hardly exhausted by the well-known passage in Livy (i. 24), where a
fate similar to that of the victim is invoked on the violators of the

covenant,* This leaves unexplained the most characteristic feature,
the passing between the pieces, Rob. Sm. surmises that the divided
victim was eaten by the contracting parties, and that afterwards "the
parties stood between the pieces, as a symbol that they were taken
within the mystical life of the victim " {RS^^ 480 f.).
18. This ceremony constitutes a Bertthy of which the one

provision is the possession of '
the land.' A Bertth neces-
sarily implies two or more parties ; but it may happen that
from the nature of the case its stipulations are binding only
on one. So here: Yahwe alone passes (symbolically)
between the pieces, because He alone contracts obligation.
— The land is described according to its ideal limits it is ;
generally thought, however, that the closing words, along

with ^*~2i^ were added by a Deuteronomic editor, and that in
the original J the promise was restricted to Canaan proper.
The Dn^p nrt^ (not, as elsewhere 'd '?n^ = Wadi el-Arish) must be the
Nile (cf. Jos. 13', I Ch. 13*^). On an old belief that the W. el-Arish was
an arm of the Nile, see Tuch.— 'i3i Vnan nnw] cf. Dt. i' ii^*, Jos. I^ The
boundary was never actually reached in the history of Israel (the notice
17. nKa— \Ti] pf. with sense of plup. (G-K. § iii^).— npj'yj only
here and Ezk. i2«- '• ^. (&. <p\6^ is certainly wrong (n?n^? K>r}h?).—]îi]
ass's & read the ptcp., hence Ball emends i;?y, —
Q'lun] the noun recurs
only Ps. 136^^; but cf. the analogous use of the vb. i Ki. 325- ^.
* " . tum illo die, Juppiter, populum Romanum sic ferito, ut ego
. .
hunc porcum hie hodie feriam, tantoque magis ferito quanto magis potes
poUesque." Cf. //. iii, 298 ff. Precisely the same idea is expressed
with great circumstantiality in an Assyrian covenant between A§ur-
niriri and the Syrian prince Mati'ilu see Peiser, MVAG, iii. 228 ff.
:
284 hagar's flight (j)
in I Ki. late and unhistorical).

5^' * is —
19-21. Such lists of pre-Israelite
inhabitants are characteristic of Dt. and Dtnic. expansions of JE. They
usually contain 5 or 6 or at most 7 names here there are 10 (see Bu. :
344 ff., and first three names appear in

Dri.'s analysis, Detit. 97). The
none of the other and the same is true of the Rephdhn in 20.
lists ;
The Kenites (see p. 113) and Kenizzites (36^^) are tribes of the Negeb,
both partly incorporated in Judah the Kadmonites (only here) are :
possibly identical with the Qij5 '33 (29^), the inhabitants of the eastern
desert. — The Hivvites, who reg-ularly appear, are supplied here by xxx.
(after Girgashites) and <& (after Canaanites). — On the liittites^ see

p. 215 ; and, further, on ch. 23 below.
The idea of a covenant (or oath) of Yahwe to the patriarchs does not
appear in the literature till the time of Jer. (11^) and Deut. (4^^ 7^2 gis^
2 Ki. 13^^ etc.) : see Kraetzschmar, 61 ff. Of 31 passag'es in JE where

27
24*^)are assigned to the Deuteronomic (Jehovistic) redaction (see Staerk,

Studien, i. 37flf.) and of these three 12' is a mere promise without an
;
oath, while in 24' the words "h V^V} i^'t'i have all the appearance of a
g-loss. It is, of course, quite possible that i5^'''' may be very ancient,
and have formed the nucleus of the theological development of the
covenant-idea in the age of Deut. But it is certainly not unreasonable
to suppose that it emanates from the period when Israel's tenure of
Canaan began to be precarious, and the popular religion sought to
reassure itself by the inviolability of Yahwe's oath to the fathers. And
that is hardly earlier than the 7th cent. (Staerk, 47).
Ch. XVI.— 7%^ Flight of Hagar and Birth of

Ishmael (J and P).
Sarai, having- no hope of herself becoming- a mother,

persuades Abram to take her Egyptian maid Hagar as a
concubine. Hagar, when she finds herself pregnant, be-
comes insolent towards her mistress, from whose harsh
treatment she ultimately flees to the desert. There the
Angel of Yahwe meets her, and comforts her with a dis-
closure of the destiny of the son she is to bear, at the same
time commanding her to go back and submit to her mistress.
In due course Ishmael is born.
In the carefully constructed biographical plan of the editors the

episode finds an appropriate place between the promise of a bodily heir
in 15 and the promise of a son through Sarai in 18 (J) or 17 (P). The
narrative itself contains no hint of a trial of Abram's faith, or an attempt
on his part to forestall the fulfilment of the promise. Its real interest
lies in another direction partly in the explanation of the sacredness of
:
a certain famous well, and partly in the characterisation of the

— —
XV. I9-XVI. 2 285

Ishmaelite nomads and the explication of their relation to Israel. The
point of the story obscured by a redactional excrescence (^), obviously
is
inserted in view of the expulsion of Hagar at a later stage. In reality

ch. 16 (J) and 228-2^ ^^^ ^^^ variants of one tradition in the Vahwistic ;
version Hagar never returned, but remained in the desert and bore her
son by the well Lahai Roi (We. Cornp.^ 22). The chapter belongs to the —
oldest stratum of the Abrahamic legends (J''), and is plausibly assigned
by Gu. to the same source as 12^^-^'^. From the main narrative of J
(J^) it is marked off by its somewhat unfavourable portraiture of Abram,
and by the topography which suggests that Abram's home was in the
Negeb rather than in Hebron. The primitive character of the legend
is best seen from a close comparison with the Elohistic parallel (see p. 324).
—
Analysis. Vv.^** ^' ^'- ^^ belong to P note the chronological data :
in '• ^^ the naming of the child by the father

; (ct. ^^) jyj? pN, ^ and ^'^
; ;
the stiff and formal precision of the style. The rest is J cf. ni.T, ^' ^' '• — :
9. 10. 11. 13. nn??^, 1- 2- «

6. 6.
[p]) nj, ^.y-în, \-The redactional
8 (also ;
addition in ^^-
{y.s.) origin by the threefold repetition of nc)i<'l
betrays its
ni.T !iK*^p n^, a fault of style which is in striking contrast to the exquisite
form of the original narrative, though otherwise the language

artistic
shows no decided departure from Yahwistic usage (Di., but see on v.'").
1-6. The flight of Hagar. i. Hag-ar is not an —

ordinary household slave, but the peculiar property of Sarai,
and therefore not at the free disposal of her master (cf. 24^^
2^24. 29 . see Benzinger, Arch.'^ 104
f., 1 26 f.).* an Egyptian]
so v.^ (P), 21^ (E) This consistent tradition points
; cf. 21^^.
to an admixture of Egyptian blood among the Ishmaelites,

the reputed descendants of Hagar. f — 2. peradventure I may
la is assigned to P partly because of onnx tvoh (cf. v.^), and partly
because the statement as to Sarai's barrenness supplies a gap .in that
document, whereas in J it is anticipated by 11^''. ib. nnc?'] (from the —
same J as nnD;f'p) is originally the slave-concubine and it is a question ;
* "Some
wives have female slaves who are their own property,
generally purchased for them, or presented to them, before their
marriage. These cannot be the husband's concubines without their
mistress's permission, which is sometimes granted (as it was in the case
of Hagar) but very seldom" (Lane, Mod. Egypt, i. 233 [from Dri.]).
;
On the resemblance to Cod. Hamm. § 146, see Introduction, p. xvii.

t The instance is one of the most favourable in Gen. to Winckler's
theory that under Dn¥P we are frequently to understand the N Arabian
land of Musri (Gu. ;'cf. Che. EB, 3164 KAT^, 146 f.). Yet even here ;
the case is far from clear. An Egyptian strain among the Bedouin
of Sinai would be easily accounted for by the very early Egyptian
occupation of the Peninsula and Burton was struck by the Egyptian ;
physiognomy of some of the Arabs of that region at the present day.

(Dri. DB, ii. 504*).
—— —
be built —
up or obtain children (v. i.)—from her] by adopting
Hagar's son as her own cf. 30^. 3 is P's parallel to ^b. 4a^
;
—
— 4. and went in^ etc, (see on 6*)] the immediate continuation
of 2b in J. was despised] a natural feeling, enhanced in

antiquity by the universal conviction that the mysteries of
conception and birth are peculiarly a sphere of divine
action. — 5. My wrong be upon thee] i.e. * May my grievance
be avenged on thee ! '
—her injured self-respect finding vent
in a passionate and most unjust imprecation. — 6. Thy maid
is in thy hand] Is this a statement of fact, or does it mean
that Abram now hands Hagar back to her mistress's

authority? The latter is Gu.'s view, who thinks that as a
concubine Hagar was no longer under the complete control
of Sarai. treated her harshly^ The word (HSy) suggests
excessive severity ; Hagar's flight is justified by the indignities
to which she was subjected (v.^^).
7-14. The theophany at the well.— 7. the Angel of

Yahwe] (see below) is here introduced for the first time as
the medium of the theophany. The scene is a fountain of
water (as yet nameless v.^*) in the desert : . . . on the way
to Shur. Shur is an unknown locality on the NE frontier
of Egypt (see Dri. DB^ iv. 510^), which gave its name to
the adjacent desert: 20^ 25^^ Ex. 15^2, i Sa. 15^ 27^ {v.i.).
The (or Q'nSx 'd) is "Yahwe Himself in self-manifestation,"

ni.T !]X^d
or, in other words, a personification of the theophany. This somewhat

subtle definition is founded on the fact that in very many instances the
Angel is at once identified with God and differentiated from Him cp. ;
e.g. vv.^°'^^ with ^^ The ultimate explanation of the ambiguity is no

doubt to be sought in the advance of religious thought to a more
whether the purpose of presenting a newly-married woman with a nn??>

may not have been to provide for the event of the marriage proving
childless. In usage it is largely coextensive with nCN, and is character-
istic of J against E, though not against P. —
iJn] The motive of Hagar's
*
flight may have been suggested by a supposed connexion with Ar.
'
hagara, *flee.' For another etymology, see No. EB, 19332.— 2. na?!<] (so
only 30') may be either a denom. from j? (so apparently (!&F2), or a
metaphor from the family as a house (Ex. i^^ i Sa. 2^^ Ru. 4" etc.).
5. 'DDn] gen. of obj., G-K, § 128 A (cf. Ob. ^°). (& ddiKovfxai iK aov.—
TJUi] The point over indicates a clerical error
' rd. (with xu.) "ij'3?. :
7b seems a duplicate of and one or other may be a gloss. The

'^*'^y
—
words nw nanoa are omitted by ffit^ entirely, and partly in several
— — :
XVI. 4-12 287

spiritualapprehension of the divine nature. The oldest conception of
the theophany is a visible personal appearance of the deity (ch. 2 f.,
Ex. 24^^ Nu. 12^^- etc.). A later, though still early, age took exception
to this bold anthropomorphism, and reconciled the original narratives
with the belief in the invisibility of God by substituting an * angel or '
*messenger of Yahwe as the agent of the theophany, without, however,

'
effacing all traces of the primitive representation (Gu. 164 f.). That
the idea underwent a remarkable development within the OT religion
must, of course, be recognised (see esp. Ex. 23^^) but the subject cannot ;
be further investigated here. See Oehler, ATTh.^ 203-211 Schultz, ;
OTTh. ii. 218-223 [Eng. tr.]; Davidson, DB, i. 94; De. Gen. 282 if.
8. The Angel's question reveals a mysterious knowledgfe

of Hagar's circumstances, who on her part is as yet ignorant
of the nature of her visitant (cf. iS^^-). — 9, 10 are interpolated
(v.i.). — II, 12. The prophecy regarding Ishmael (not ^^
alone: Gu.) is in metrical form: two triplets with lines of

4 or 3 measures. Behold, etc.] The form of announcement
seems consecrated by usage cf. Ju. 13^- ^, Is. 7^*. Vzs/imael] ; —
properly, ' May God hear,' is rendered *God hears,' in token
of Yahwe's regard for the mother's distress {'^'^pV ; cf. HfJ^ri), ^"j,
— a wild ass of a man] or perhaps the wild ass of

12.
humanity (SST"^, lEz. De. al.) Ishmael being among the —
families of mankind what the wild ass is amongst animals
(Jb. 39^"^, Jer. ^^), It is a fine image of the free intractable
Bedouin character which is to be manifested in Ishmael's

descendants. dwell in the face of all his brethren (cf. 25^^)]
hardly *to the east of,' which is too weak a sense, ^^2"i'i?
seems to express the idea of defiance (as Jb. i^^), though it
is not easy to connect this with the vb. Possibly the
cursives : 5 omits X^rrh^. — wall ?) has been supposed (doubtfully)

nit^] (* '
to be a line of fortifications guarding the NE frontier of Egypt. The

Knjn of ÔJ (if an Arabism) may express "m in the sense of *
wall '
% has '^r^^x (
=*'1?> 20^)* — 9» ^0 ^^^ ^ double interpolation. The command
to return to Sarai was a necessary consequence of the amalgamation of

^" was added to soften the return to slavery (Gu.).
J and E (22^*^*) ; and
*" is impossible before ^^, and is besides made up of phrases character-
istic of redactional additions to JE (cf. 22^' 32^^).— Inf. abs. G-K. •"i?"''"']
;
§75^.-11. r>rh\ for so Ju. \f'~ (G-K. §8oc?).— 12. Dnt< Nnsj see
x\•^});^\
G-K. § 1 28/6, /. Si has ] a.l Ij-O) \\r^^ ^""^ ^^ *"^^ '^^^ "'"J''^ 'D^D.—
— — —
meaning is that Ishmael will be an inconvenient neighbour

(i?^) to his settled brethren. — 13, 14. From this experience
of Hagar the local deity and the well derive their names.
13. T/iou art a God of vision] z.e, (if the following text can
be trusted) both in an objective and a subjective sense,
a God who may be seen as well as one who sees. Have I
even here (? v.i.) seen after him who sees me ?] This is the only
sense that can be extracted from the 'MT, which, however, is
strongly suspected of being corrupt. 14. Be'er Lahay R6i\ —
apparently means either Well of the Living One who sees
'
me,' or 'Well of ''He that sees me lives'". The name

occurs again 24^^ 25^^. Kadesh and Bered\ On
between
Kadesh, see on 14"^. Bered is unknown. In Arab tradition
the well of Hagar is plausibly enough identified with *Ain-
Muweilih, a caravan station about 12 miles to the W of
Kadesh (Palmer, Des. of Exod. ii. 354 If.). The well must
have been a chief sanctuary of the Ishmaelites; hence the
later Jews, to whom Ishmael was a name for all Arabs,
identified it with the sacred well Zemzem at Mecca. — 15, 16.
The birth of Ishmael, recorded by P.
The g-eneral scope of '^^^' is clear, though the details are very obscure.
By a process of syncretism the orig-inal numen of the well had come to
be regarded as a particular local manifestation of Yahwe and the ;
attempt is made to interpret the old names from the standpoint of the
higher religion. 'NT "?« and 'kt 'nV are traditional names of which the
real meaning had been entirely forgotten, and the etymologies here
given are as fanciful as in all similar cases, (i) In 'NT 'n^ the Mass.
punctuation recognises the roots Ti, 'live,' and hni, 'see,' taking as *?
circumscribed gen. but that can hardly be correct. We. {Prol.^ 323 f.),
;
following Mich, and Ges. {Th. 175), conjectures that in the first element
13. 'NT Sn nnN] fflc Tu Deus qui vidisti me both

2{> 6 debs 6 i<pLdu)v fie, TB :
reading 'Ni (ptcp. with suff.). — For

Ba. would substitute nriN, deleting
niPiN,
rxh^. —
The 'nt of ^^^ is not the pausal form of the preceding 'XT (which
'^'^^'
would be 'NT i Sa. 16^2, Nah. 3^, Jb. zf^\ but Qal ptcp. with suff. The
:
authority of the accentuation may, of course, be questioned. 14. NTij] —

indef. subj., for which »x substitutes nxTp. —T13] ^ ^j-ti'^^ *<"'^n (see on
V.'). CJ has N!£i'?n (Elusa), probably el-Halasa, about 12 miles of SW

Beersheba. It has been supposed that Tja may be identical with a
place BijpSdv in the Gerar district, mentioned by Eus. {OS, 145^^ [Lag.
299'^]), who explains the name as ^piap Kpiaeus ( = p 1N^) see v. Gall, :
est 43.
— — .
XVI. I3-XVII. 289

we have the word 'n), 'jaw-bone' (Ju. 15^^), and in the second an
obsolete animal name: hence 'Well of the antelope's (?) jaw-bone.'
V. Gall (est 40 ff.) goes a step further and distingûishes two wells,
'NT (nx?) fa, and 'n^^ -1N3, the former peculiar to
J and the latter to E (cf.
(& of 24^2 25ii)._(2) 'NT Sn, whatever its primary significance, is of a
type common in the patriarchal narratives (see p. 291). Of the sug--
gested restorations of ^^^, by far the most attractive is that of We.
(I.e.), who changes nSn to d'hSn, reads 'kt as V!<"3, inserts 'nxi between
'n'NT and nnx, and renders, " Have I actually seen God and lived after
—
my vision ? " an allusion to the prevalent belief that the sight of God
is followed by death (Ex. 332°, Ju. 6^ 13^3 etc.). The emendation has
at least the advantage of giving a meaning to both elements in the
name of the well. Gu.'s objection that the emphatic 'here' is indis-
pensable, is of doubtful validity, for unfortunately D% does not mean
'here but 'hither.'
'
Ch. XVII. The Covenant of Circumcision (P).
To Abram, who is henceforth to be called Abraham (^),
God reveals Himself under a new name (i),

entering into a
covenant with him (^~^)> of which the sign is the rite of
circumcision (^~^*). The heir of this covenant is to be a
son born to Sarai (whose name is changed to Sarah) in the
following year (^^~22j^ Abraham immediately circumcises all
the males of his household (23-27^^ 'Pq ^-j^^ writer of the

Priestly Code the incident is important (i) as an explanation
of the origin of circumcision, which in his day had become
a fundamental institution of Judaism ; and (2) as marking
a new stage in the revelation of the true God to the world.
The Abrahamic covenant inaugurates the third of the four
epochs (commencing respectively with Adam, Noah, Abraham
and Moses) into which the Priestly theory divides the history
of mankind. On the ethnic parallels to this scheme, Gu.'s
note (p. 233 ff.) may be consulted.
Source. — The
marks of P's authorship appear in every line of the
jhapter. Besides the general qualities of style, which need not again
be particularised, we may note the following expressions D'n'?K :
(throughout, except v.^, where ni.T is either a redactional change or a

scribal error) nc' *?«, ^
; nna D'pn, '3 }nj, 2- 7. 19. 21 ^^.^ nxnn, 2. 6. 20 .jy.,,, ^^^
; . .
TnnN, 7- 8- »• 10- 1» ; Dn-n"?, '• ^- 12 px, s nrnx, 8 -avHz,

; on^D, ^ ; |yj3 . ; i"- 12. 23
napD, 12. 13. 23. 27 .

'^:,r)^-y^
12. 27 '^j, ^'sjn nm3:i, "
. nnm ms, 20 oN'trj, 20 . ^»<;,^.^, 20
; ;
ntn ^VTi D2jy3, 23. 26 gee Di. Ho. Gu.

.
References to the passage in other
parts of P are 2 12- « 28^ 3512, Ex. 2^^ 6^^- (Lv. 12^ ?).
19
— — ,
290 THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION (p)
The parallelism with ch. 15 makes it probable that that

close
chapter, in present composite form, is the literary basis of P's account
its
of the covenant. Common to the two narratives are (a) the self-intro-
duction of the Deity (17^ 15'^) (b) the covenant ( 1 7 /»a^5.
|| ;
15^"^') (c) the |i ;
promise of a numerous seed {ly'^ pass. 15") (d) of the land (17^ 15^^) ||
; |i
(e) of a son (if^- 21 154) (/) Abraham's incredulity (171^ is^- 8).
1| ; The |I
features peculiar to P, such as the sign of circumcision, the etymology

of prj¥! in v.", the changes of names, etc., are obviously not of a kind
to suggest the existence of a separate tradition independent of J and E.
1-8. The Covenant-promises. — These are three in
number : Abraham will be the father of a numerous pos-

{a)
terity (2^- *"^) (b) God will be a God to him and to his seed
;
^7b. 8bj .
j^j jîs seecj shall inherit the land of Canaan (^*).
We recognise here a trace of the ancient religious concep-

tion according to which god, and people formed land,
an indissoluble an indispensable
triad, the land being
pledge of fellowship between the god and his worshippers
(see RS^, 92 f.). —
I. appeared to Abram] z'.e.f in a theo-
phany, as is clear from v.^^. It is the only direct communi-
cation of God to Abram recorded in P. P is indeed very

sparing in his use of the theophany, though Ex. 6^ seems to
imply that his narrative contained one to each of the three
patriarchs. If that be so, the revelation to Isaac has been
lost, while that to Jacob is twice referred to (35® 48^)* I am
Êl Shaddai\ The origin, etymology, and significance of this
I. nw Sk] For a summary of the views held regarding this divine
name, the reader may be referred to Baethgen, Beitr, 293 ff., or

Kautzsch in EB, iii. 3326 f. (cf. Che. ih. iv. 4419 f.); on the render-
ings of the ancient Vns., see the synopses of Di. (259), Dri. (404 f.),
and Valeton {ZATW, xii. 11^). —

It is unfortunately impossible to
ascertain whether 'W was originally an independent noun, or an
attribute of Sn Noldeke and Baethgen decide for the latter view. The
:
traditional Jewish etymology resolves the word into = T^N and n, t5'
*
the allrsufficient ' or *
Ra. b"K' Kin '3«
self-sufficient ' {Ber. R. § 46 : cf.
nnn Sd*? 'mn'?Na n). Though

can be traced as far back as
this theory
the rendering of Aq. S. and 0. (kav^s), it is an utterly groundless
conjecture that P used the name in this sense (Valeton). On the other
hand, it seems rash to conclude (with No, al.) that the Mass. punctua-
tion has no better authority than this untenable interpretation, so that
we are at liberty to vocalise as we please in accordance with any
plausible etymological theory. The old derivation from sj Tits' =
*
destroy,' is still the best it is grammatically unobjectionable, has at
:
— —
XVII. 1-4 291
title are alike obscure : see the footnote. In P it is the

signature of the patriarchal age (Ex. 6^) ; or rather it
designates the true God as the patron of the Abrahamic

covenant, whose terms are explicitly referred to in every
passage where the name occurs in P (28^ 35^^ 48^). That it
marks an advance in the revelation of the divine character
can hardly be shown, though the words immediately follow-
ing may suggest that the moral condition on which the
covenant is granted is not mere obedience to a positive
precept, but a life ruled by the ever-present sense of God as
the ideal of ethical perfection. Walk before me (cf. 24*^ —
48^^)] i.e.y * Live consciously in My presence,' i Sa. 12^,
Is. 38^; cf. I Jn. i^. perfect] or 'blameless' ; see on 6^.
2. On the idea and scope of the covenant (^^"13), see p.

297 f.
—
father of a multitude (lit. tumult) of nations]
below. 4.
In substance the promise is repeated in 28^ 48* (QW /'np)

and 35^^ (D)'l3 P) ; the peculiar expression here anticipates
the etymology of v.^ While J (12^ 18^^ 46^) restricts the
promise to Israel (Vns ^13), P speaks of *
nations '
in the
plural, including the Ishmaelites and Edomites amongst the
least some support in Is. 13*, Jl. i^"^, and is free from difficulty if we
accept it as an ancient title appropriated by P without reg-ard to its
real significance. The assumption of a by-form ma? (Ew. Tu. al.) is

g-ratuitous, and would yield a form 'W, not '^r. Other proposed
etymologies are from "W originally = lord (Ar. sayyid), afterwards
:
*
'
= 'demon' (pointing ng' or n^ [pi. maj.] No. ZDMG, xl. 735 f., xlii. :
480 f.); from ^J mB? (Ar. iadd) = *be wet' ('the raingiver': OT/CP,
424); from Syr. (,-», * hurl' (Schwally, ZDMG, lii. 136: **a dialectic
equivalent of nin» in ["j?']). VoUers
the sense of lightning-thrower"
(ZA, xvii. an original "'«?(>/ nits'), afterwards, through
310) argues for
popular etymology and change of religious meaning, fathered on ,J iib'.
Several Assyriologists connect the word with SadA rabti, 'great
mountain,' a title of B^l and other Bab. deities (Homm. AHT, 109 f. ;
Zimmem, IÂ 7^, 358) a view which would be more plausible if, as Frd.
:
Del. {Prol. 95 f.) has maintained, the Ass. î^ meant 'lofty' but this is ;
denied by other authorities (Halevy, ZKF, ii. 405 if. Jen. ZA, i. 251). ;
As to the origin of the name, there is a probability that *^^ Sk was an old
(cf. On. 49-®) Canaanite deity, of the same class as 'El Ely on (see on '
14^^), whom the Israelites identified with Yahwe (so Gu. 235). — 4. "ivi is
casus pendens (Dri. T. § 197 (4)), not emphatic anticipation of following'
sufF. (as G-K. § 135/).
:
descendants of Abraham. See, however, on 28^. — 5. Abram's

name changed to Ahrahaniy interpreted as
is '
Father of
multitude.' Cf. Neh. 9^
The equation Dn-i3X = [D'iJ] al. doubt if a

poq 3N is so forced that Di.
serious etymolog^y was between word-play and
intended. The line
etymology is difficult to draw and all that can safely be said is that
;
the strained interpretation here given proves that Dn-i^N is no artificial

formation, but a genuine element of tradition, (i) The form n-iix is an
abbreviation of q-j'^n (Nu. 16^ etc. : cf. n:?K, i Sa. 14" etc., with ir^N,
I Sa. 145" ; i'7^?N, 2 152- 1"), which occurs as
Ch. iiô- 21, with Di'?^'';^!, i Ki.
a personal name not only in Heb. but also as that of an Ass. official
{Aht-rAmu) under Esarhaddon, B.C. 677 (see KAT^, 482)*. (2) Of
Dm3N, on the other hand, no scientific etymology can be given. The
nearest approach to P's explanation would be found in the Ar. ruhdm
= copious number (from a sj descriptive of a fine drizzling rain
* '
Lane, s.v.).'\ De. thinks this the best explanation but the etymology ;
is far-fetched, and apart from the probably accidental correspondence
with P's interpretation the sense has no claim to be correct. With —

regard to the relation of the two forms, various theories are propounded.
Hommel {AHT, 275 ffi A/VAG, ii. 271) regards the difference as merely
;
orthographic, the n being inserted, after the analogy of Minsean, to

mark the long d (d.tj3x), while a later misunderstanding is responsible
for the pronunciation Dny. Strack and Stade {ZATW, i. 349) suppose
a dialectic distinction according to the latter, Dman is the original
:
(Edomite) form, of which m^N is the Hebraized equivalent. t Wi. ((?/,

ii. 26) finds in them two distinct epithets of the moon-god Sin, one
describing him as father of the gods {Sin ahu ildni), and the other
(* father of the strife of peoples ') as god of war {Sin karib ildni). The
possibility must also be considered that the difference is due to the
fusion in tradition of two originally distinct fig-ures (see Paton, Syr. and
5. noty-riN] G-K. § 121a, 6 ; but nx is omitted in some MSS and in ux.
* Hommel's reading of AM-rdmu on a contract tablet of Abil-Sin,

the grandfather of Hammurabi
has proved to be in-
(see AHT, 96),
correct, the true reading being AM-Eral} (see Ranke, Personennamen
in d. Urk. der Ham. -dynastic, 1902, p. 48). The name has, however,
recently been discovered in several documents of the time of Ammi-
zaduga, the loth king of the same dynasty. See BA, vi. (1909), Heft 5,
p. 60, where Ungnad shows that the name is not West Semitic, but
Babylonian, that the pronunciation was Abaram, and that the first
element is an accusative. He suggests that it may mean " he loves the
father " {rdma = nr\'\), the unnamed subject being probably a god. Comp.
ET, xxi. (1909), 881f.
t The Ar. kunyd, ' Abu-ruhm is only an accidental coincidence : No.
ZDMG, xlii. 4842.
X Similarly v. Gall {CSt. 53), who compares Aram. Z.0T-O, Ar. hht^
appearing in Heb. as e'la.
—
XVII. 5-9 293
Pal. 41). It is quite a plausible supposition, though the thoroughness

of the redaction has effaced the proof of it, that m3N was peculiar to J
—
and Dm3N to E. Outside of Gen. (with the exception of the citations
I Ch. i^, Neh. 9') the form Abraham alone is found in OT.
6. The promise of kings among Abraham's descendants

is again peculiar to P (35^^). The reference is to the
Hebrew monarchy : the rulers of Ishmael are only '
princes'
(DN^K^J, V.20), and those of Edom (36*0) are styled ^'k^,—j.
to be to thee a God] The essence of the covenant relation is
expressed by this frequently recurring formula.* It is
important for P's notion of the covenant that the correlative

'they (ye) shall be to me a people,' which is always added
in other writings (ex. Ezk. 34^^), is usually omitted by P
(ex. Ex. 6'^, Lv. 26^-). The berith is conceived as a self-
determination of God to be to one particular race all that the
word God implies, a reciprocal act of choice on man's part
being no essential feature of the relation. — 8. land of thy
sojour?iing\ 28^ 36^ 37^ 47^, Ex. 6* (all P).

9-14. The
sign of the Covenant. To the promises of —
vv.2~^ there is attached a single command, with regard to
which it is difficult to say whether it belongs to the content
of the covenant (v.^^), or is merely an adjunct, an external —
mark of the invisible bond which united every Jew to
Yahwe (^^) see p. 297. The theme at all events is the
:
institution of circumcision. The legal style of the section is
so pronounced that it reads like a stray leaf from the book

of Leviticus (note the address in 2nd p. pi. from ^^ onwards),
— 9. And God said] marks a new section (cf. ^^), nriNI being
the antithesis to opposed
"'?5< in *. keep my covenant] "'PK^ is
to "^Sn, 'break,' in 1*; hence it cannot mean 'watch over'

(Valeton), but must be used in the extremely common sense
of observe or act according to.* The question would
* '
6. ipo] & ^f-*^ ^= ?i'i;sp ; see on 15^ — 8. ninx] a common word

in P ; elsewhere only Ps. 2^, Ezk. 4428, i Ch. 7^8.
* The of passages as given by Dri. (p. 186) is as follows In P,

list :
Ex. 6' 29^=, Lv. ii« in P^, Lv. 22S3 25^8 2612- « Nu. i5« ; elsewhere, Dt.
;
2913 (cf. 26"*- )» Jer. f^ 11' 247 3022 31I.83, Ezk. 11^
2Sa. 72^(= I Ch. 1722), Zee. 8\
— — — ;
never have been raised but for a disinclination to admit

anything of the nature of a stipulation into P's idea of the
covenant. — 10. This is my covenant^ Circumcision is both
the covenant and the sign of the covenant : the writer's
ideas are sufficiently vague and elastic to include both
representations. It is therefore unnecessary (with Ols. and
Ball) to read ^n"'"i3 nx nxT (see v.^^). II. for a covenant-sign\
i.e.^ after the analogy of g^^^-, a token by which God is
reminded of the existence of the covenant. The conception
rises out of the extraordinary importance of the rite when
the visible fabric of Hebrew nationality was dissolved, and
nothing remained but this corporal badge as a mark of the
religious standing of the Jew before Yahwe. I2a. at the age
of eight days\ connected with the period of the mother's
uncleanness Lv. i2i-3; cf. Gn. 21^ Lk. i^^ 2^1, Phil. 3^
:
Jos. Ant. i. 214. 12b, 13 go together (De.), extending the

obligation to slaves^ who as members of the household
follow the religion of their master. —
The penalty of dis-
obedience is death or excommunication, according as one or
the other is meant by the obscure formula : he cut off from
its kindred [v.i.).
10. I'lnN ijni p3i] ffi + els tAj yevehs airruv. The whole is possibly a
g-loss (KS. Ba. Gu.), due to confusion between the legislative stand-
point of ^^^' with its plural address, and the special communication to
; —
Abraham see, however, vv.^^'* Sinn] inf. abs. used as juss. G-K. ;
§ 113 ccygg: cf. Ex. 12^, Lev. 6^ Nu. 6°. —

H. n^?^^] treated by ÔJ as
active, from s] ^^^, but really abbreviated Niph. of \j SS^ (cf. G-K. § 67 dd)^
—
a rare by-form (Jos. 5^) of '?id. n'ni] au. nriMi, adopted by Ba.— 12. n'3 t*?']
see 14^1 —
»]D3 nopo] only vv.^^-
2^-
" and Ex. 12^*. lyniD is the individual- —
ising- use of 2nd p. sing., frequently alternating with 2nd pi. in legal
enactments. —
So v.^^ 14. in'?ny] jui(!& + 'J'Dsjti nra (Ba.). n'oyo nmaji] — —
So Ex. 3033.38 3ii4^ Lv. 720f.25.27 1^9 1^8 2329^ Nu. 9^3_all in P, who
—
employs a number of similar phrases * his people,' Israel,' the con- ' *
—
gregation of Israel,' 'the assembly,' etc. to express the same idea (see
Dri. 1872). D'sy is here used in the sense of *kin,' as occasionally in OT
(see 19^ 25^). It is the Ar. 'amm, which combines the two senses of
'people,' and 'relative on the father's side' see We. GGN, 1893, 480,
:
and cf. Dri. on Dt. 32^ (p. 384); Krenkel, ZATW, viii. 280 ff. Nestle, ;
ih. xvi. 322 f. KA 7^, 480 f. With regard to the sense of the formula
;
there are two questions (a) whether it embraces the death-penalty, or

:
merely exclusion from the sacra of the clan and from burial in the family
grave and (6) whether the punishment is to be inflicted by the com-
;
— ' '
XVII. io-i8 295
15-22. The —
The promise of the
heir of the Covenant.
birth of Isaac brought into connexion with the main idea
is
of the chapter by the assurance (^^- î) that the covenant is

to be estabHshed with him and not with Ishmael. 15. —
Sarai's name is changed to Sarah. The absence of an etymo-
logical motive is remarkable [v.i.), —
l6b. In (^^ Jub.y 5J and
S, the blessing on Sarah is by slight changes of text turned
into a blessing on the son whose birth has just been foretold
(v.i.). The MT, however, is 'more likely to be correct.
17. Abraham's demeanour is a strange mixture of reverence
and incredulity: ''partim gaudio exultans, partim admir-
atione extra se raptus, in risum prorumpit " is Calvin's
comment. It is P's somewhat unnatural clothing of the
traditional etymology of Isaac (pnv, v.^^) cf. iS^^ (J), 21^ (E).
;
— 18.
•
The prayer, O that Ishmael might live before thee! —
under Thy protection and with Thy blessing (Hos. 6^) is a —
fine touch of nature ; but the writer's interest lies rather in
the 'determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,' which
overrides human feeling and irrevocably decrees the election
munity, or by God in His providence. The interpretation seems to have

varied in different ages. Ex. 31^^** clearly contemplates the death
penalty at the hands of the community while Lv. 1 7^** 20'* ' point as
;
clearly to a divine interposition. The probability is that it is an archaic

juridical formula for the punishment of death, which came to be used
vaguely "as a strong affirmation of divine disapproval, rather than as
prescribing a penalty to be actually enforced " (Dri.). See Sta. GVI^
i. 421 f. ; Ho. p. 127 f.— isn] pausal form for ngn (G-K. § 29 q).
15. '1^' {<& S(£/)a) and m;^ ((K Sd/5pa)] According to No. {ZDMG, xl.
183, xlii. 484), V is an an old fem. termin. surviving in Syr. Arab, and
Eth. On this view '1^ may be either the same word as nn^, * princess
(;^mt5'), or (as the differentiation of ffi suggests) from v/.Tny, 'strive,'
with which the name Israel was connected (Gn. 322*, Ho. i2'*: see
Rob. Sm. KM^y 34 f. [No. dissents]). On Lagarde's {Mitth. ii. 185)
attempt to connect the name with Ar. Sara> =* wild fertile spot,' and so
to identify Abraham (as husband of Sarai ') with the Nabatean god
*
Dusares (du-SSaray), see Mey. INS, 269 f., who thinks the conjecture
raised beyond doubt by the discovery of the name Sarayat as consort of
Dusares on an inscr. at Bosra in the Haurin. The identification re-
mains highly problematical.— 16. n^nDnai] ux vn3i3i. So <& Juh. iT^,
—
which consistently maintain the masc. to the end of the v. 17. 'n— dki]
a combination of the disjunctive question with casus pendens see G-K. \
§ 150^.
— — — —
of Israel (^^). —
ipa. Comp. the language with 16^^, and observe
that the naming of the child is assigned to the father. 20. —
^••ny^^'] a remote allusion to the popular explanation of
i'Kvbe^:, 'May God hear' (cf. 16II 21^'^). Ishmael is to be
endowed for Abraham's sake with every kind of blessing,
except the religious privileges of the covenant. twelve
princes] (cf. 25^^) as contrasted with the '
kings ' of ^- 1^.
22. The close of the theophany. —H'P ^^T^- as 35^^.

23-27. Circumcision of Abraham's household. — 23.
on that very day (cf. 7^^)] repeated in v. 2^. Throughout the
section, P excels himself in pedantic and redundant circum-
stantiality of narration. The circumcision of Ishmael, how-
ever, is inconsistent with the theory that the rite is a sign
of the covenant, from which Ishmael is excluded (Ho. Gu.).
— 25. thirteen years old\ This was the age of circumcision
among the ancient Arabs, according to Jos. Ant, i. 214.
Origen (Eus. PrcEp. Ev. vi. 11 :* cf. We. Heid.^ ^75^) and j
Ambrose [de Abrah. ii. 348) give a similar age (14 years)
for the Egyptians. It is possible that the notice here is
based on a knowledge of this custom. Among the modern

Arabs there is no fixed rule, the age varying from three to
fifteen years : see Di. 264 ; Dri. in DB^ ii. 504^.
Circumcision is a widely diffused rite of primitive relig'ion, of whose

introduction among the Hebrews
no authentic tradition. One
there is
account (Ex. 4^^*") suggests a Midianite origin, another (Jos. 5^*) an

Egyptian the mention of flint knives in both these passages is a proof
:
of the extreme antiquity of the custom (the Stone Age).t The anthro-
19. ^nx] ^
—
Nayy but,' a rare asseverative (42^^, 2 Sa. 14^, 2 Ki. 4^*,
I Ki. 1^) and adversative (Dn. lo'- Ezr. 10", 2 Ch. i* '^^, 19^ 33^^) par-
ticle. See the interesting note in Burney, Notes on Kings, p. 1 1 and ;
cf. —
Konig, ii. 265. vnnx lyni'?] ffi koI rep air^pfiaTi avrov fxer avrbv appears
to imply a preceding clause elvai aur^J Beds, which is found in many
cursives. This is probably the correct reading. 20. dntj] (& Ôpt). — —
24. njB'] XXX D'JK'. —
iSnnn] The Niph. is here either refl. or pass. in ^^ it ;
is pass. 26 '?iD3] irreg. pf. Niph. G-K. § 72 ee. & takes it as act.
;
(/^Sdj?) with Ishmael as obj. ; and so in v.^ {irepi^re/jLev ayroi^s). ^

* Ed. Heinichen, p. 310 f.
t In a tomb of the Old Empire at Sakkara there are wall-pictures

of the operation, where the surgeon uses a flint knife see G. Elliot :
Smith in British Medical Journal, 1908, 732 (quoted by Matthes) and ;
the illustration in Texte u. Bilder, ii. p. 126.

;
XVII. 19-26 297

pologfical evidence shows that it was originally performed at puberty,
as a preliminary to marriage, or, more generally, as a ceremony of
initiation into the full religious and civil status of manhood. This
primary idea was dissipated when it came to be performed in infancy
and its perpetuation in this form can only be explained by the inherited
belief that it was an indispensable condition of participation in the
common cultus of the clan or nation. Passsages like Dt. lo'' 30^, Ezk.
44^' ^, in Israel it came to be regarded as a token of allegiance
show that
to Yahweand in this fact we have the germ of the remarkable de-
;
velopment which the rite underwent in post-Exilic Judaism. The new

importance it then acquired was due to the experience of the Exile
(partly continued in the Dispersion), when the suspension of public
worship gave fresh emphasis to those rites which (like the Sabbath and
circumcision) could be observed by the individual, and served to distin-
guish him from his heathen neighbours. In this way we can understand
how, while the earlier legal codes have no law of circumcision, in P it
becomes a prescription of the first magnitude, being placed above the
Mosaic ritual, and second in dignity only to the Sabbath. The explicit
formulating of the idea that circumcision is the sign of the national
covenant with Yahwe was the work of the Priestly school of jurists ;
and very few legislative acts have exercised so tremendous an influence

on the genius of a religion, or the character of a race, as this apparently
trivial adjustment of a detail of ritual observance. For information on
various aspects of the subject, see Ploss, Das Kind in Branch und Sitte
der Volker"- (1894), i. 342-372; We. Heid."^ 174^-? Prol.^ 338 ff. Sta. ;
ZATWy vi. 132-143 the arts, in ; DB

(Macalister) and EB (Benzinger)
and the notes in Di. 258; Ho. 129; Gu. 237; Dri. 189 ff.; Strack^,
67; Matthes, ZATWy xxix. 70 ff.
The Covenant-idea in P (see also p. 290 f. above). In P's scheme
of four world-ages, the word nn^ is used only of the revelations associ-
ated with Noah and Abraham. In the Creation-narrative the term is
avoided because the constitution of nature then appointed was after-
wards annulled, whereas the Berith is a permanent and irreversible
determination of the divine will. The conception of the Mosaic revela-
tion as a covenant is Jehovistic (Ex. 24^"^ 34^^^- etc.) and Deuteronomic
there are traces of it in secondary strata
[P^]) but it is not found in the historical
;
work which is the kernel of the Code (P^). Hence in trying to under-
stand the religious significance of the Berith in P*^, we have but two
examples to guide us. And with regard to both, the question is keenly
discussed whether it denotes a self-imposed obligation on the part of
God, irrespective of any condition on the part of man (so Valeton,
ZATW, xii. I ff.), or a bilateral engagement involving reciprocal obliga-
tions between God and men (so in the main Kraetzschmar, Bundes-
vorst. 183 ff.). The answer depends on the view taken of circumcision
in this chapter. According to Valeton, it is merely a sign and nothing
* Could however, be taken to mean that the Sabbath was a

this,
* sign ' of the Adamic dispensation conceived as a covenant ?
298 ABRAHAM ENTERTAINS ANGELS (j)
more; i.e., a means whereby God

is reminded of the covenant. Ac-
cording- to Kraetzschmar, both a sign and a constituent of the
it is
covenant, forming the condition on which the covenant is entered into.

The truth seems to lie somewhere between two extremes. The B^riih is
neither a simple divine promise to which no obligation on man's part' is
attached (as in 15^^), nor is it a mutual contract in the sense that the
failure of one party dissolves the relation. It is an immutable determina-
tion of God's purpose, which no unfaithfulness of man can invalidate ;
but it carries conditions, the neglect of which will exclude the individual
from its benefits. It is perhaps an over-refinement when Kraetz-
schmar {I.e. 201) infers from the expressions D'pn and fini that for P there
is only one eternal divine B^rith, immutably established by God and
progressively revealed to man.
Ch. XVIII. The Theophany at Hebron : Abraham's

Intercession for Sodom (J).
Under the terebinths of Mamre, Abraham hospitably

entertains three mysterious visitors (^~^), and is rewarded by
the promise of a son to be born to Sarah in her old age (^~^^).
The whose true nature had been disclosed by

three 'men,'
their supernatural knowledge of Sarah's thoughts, then turn
towards Sodom, accompanied by Abraham (i^), who, on
learning Yahwe's purpose to destroy that city (^^~^^), inter-
cedes eloquently on its behalf (22-33^.
The first half of the chapter (^"^^) shows at its best the picturesque,
lucid, and flexible narrative style of J, and contains many expressions
^3. 14
characteristic of that document : rv\r\\ i- . nN-ii?V p"i, ^ (only in J 24"
29^^ 33^); 10 ^^^y ^; «J. ^•*; ^l?y (for ist per.), 3.5; jrSr'?, '^; n? rvp), 13;
rypwT^, i«. The latter part (""33) is also Yahwistic (m.T, 20. 22. 26. 33 . HT[Tîr(]^
nL,t,p,^ 25
27. 3off. .
contains two expansions of later date than
.
nygn^ 32)^ \^^^
the primary narrative. We. {Comp.^ 27

f.) appears to have proved that the
original connexion between 18^^ and 19^ consists of ^^- 20-22a. ssb g^^^j ^îsX .
17-19. 22b-33a g^j-g

editorial insertions reflecting theological ideas proper to
a more advanced stage of thought (see below). A more comprehensive
analysis is attempted by Kraetzschmar in ZATW, xvii. 81 ff., prompted
by the perplexing alternation of the sing, ([mn'] i- 3- lo. is. 14. is. 17-21. m-as)
and pi. (2- 4. 6. 8. 9. 16. 22a^ * \^ ^îe dialogue between Abraham and his
guests. The theory will repay a closer examination than can be given
to it here ; but I agree with Gu. in thinking that the texture of ^'^^ is too
homogeneous to admit of decomposition, and that some other explana-
* It is important, however, to observe that in xxx (if we except the

introductory ^^) the sing, does not appear till 1°, but after that regularly
up to ^^
— —
XVIII. 1-3 299
tion of the phenomenon in question must be sought than the assumption
of an interweaving- of a sing, and a pi. recension of the legend (see on
v.^ and p. 303 below).* With Gu. also, we may regard the chapter as
the immediate sequel to 13^^ in the legendary cycle which fixes the
residence of Abraham at Hebron (J^). The conception of Abraham's
character is closely akin to what we meet throughout that section of J,
and differs appreciably from the representation of him in 12^°'^*' and 16.
1-8. The entertainment of the three wayfarers.

The description ** presents a perfect picture of the manner in
which a modern Bedawee sheikh receives travellers arriving
at his encampment. He immediately orders his wife or
women to make bread, slaughters a sheep or other animal,
and dresses it in haste and, bringing milk and any other
;
provisions that he may have at hand, with the bread and

the meat that he has dressed, sets them before his guests if :
they are persons of high rank he also stands by them while

they eat" (Lane, Mod. EgJ" i. 364: from Dri.). I. Yahwe —
appeared^ efc] This introductory clause simply means that
the incident about to be related has the value of a theophany.
In what way the narrator conceived that Yahwe was present
in the th,ree —
men whether He was one of the three, or whether
all three were Yahwe in self-manifestation (De.) — we can
hardly The common view that the visitors were Yahwe
tell.
accompanied by two of His angels does not meet the diffi-

culties of the exegesis and it is more probable that to the
;
original Yahwist the men were emissaries and representa-

* '
tives of Yahwe, who was not visibly present (see p. 304 f.).
— dVh Dh^] at the hottest (and drowsiest) time of the day
(2 Sa. 4^). —
2. and behold] The mysteriously sudden advent
of the strangers marks them as superhuman beings (Jos. 5^^),

though this makes no impression on Abraham at the time.
The interest of the story turns largely on his ignorance of
the real character of his guests. —
3. The Mass. pointing
^j'lX implies that Abraham recognised Yahwe as one of
the three (Tu. De. al.); but this we have just seen to be
I. m.T] (B 6 6e6s. — In vhtt the suff. may refer back directly to 13^^ (see
on the v.). ktdd 'jSn^] ffi Trpos r-p 5pvt ttj M. ; see on 13^^ — 3. Read with
* The same solution had occurred to Ball {SBOT, 1896), but was
rightly set aside by him as unproved.
— — :
a mistake. The correct form is either ^^^^ (as 23^- 1^, etc.
so Di. Dri.), or (better, as 19^) '•nx : Sirs/ — restoring (with
«x) the pi. throughout the v. —The whole of Abraham's
speech is a fine example of the profuse, deferential, self-
depreciatory courtesy characteristic of Eastern manners.
wash your 19^ 24^2 j^2i^
4. feet] Cf. ^^^^^ ^^ 2 Sa. n^,
Lk. 7**, I Ti. 5^*^. recline yourselves] not at meat (Gu.), but
during the preparation of the meal. Even in the time of
Amos (6^) have been a new-
reclining at table seems to
fangled and luxurious habit introduced from abroad ct. :
the ancient custom 27^^, Ju. 19^, i Sa. 20^- ^^^ i Ki. 132^'.
5. support your heart] with the food, Ju. 19^- ^, i Ki. 13^,
Ps. 104I5. cf. bread the 'staff' of life, Lv. 26^6, 3I.
Is.
—seeing that, etc.] Hospitality is, so to speak, the logical
corollary of passing Abraham's tent. —6-8. The preparation
of a genuine Bedouin repast, consisting of hastily baked
cakes of bread, Jlesh, and milk in two forms. On the items,
v.i. — 8. and they ate] So 19^ — the only cases in OT where
the Deity is represented as eating (ct. Ju. 6^^^- 13^^). The
anthropomorphism evaded by Jos. {Aitt. i. 197
is : oi 81 Boâv
avT(o 7rapea-)(OV ia-OiovTbiV cf. Tob. 12^^), ^^, Ra. al.
;
9-15. The promise of a son to Sarah. —The subject

is introduced with consummate skill. In the course of the
conversation which naturally follows the meal, an apparently
casual question leads to an announcement which shows
XXX oa'ryn, -nnyn, DDnay, —

5. nayn inN] (juuffiôj) jg ^.ê better reading-, to
which aSt —
adds els ttji' 656;' v/jluiv (cf. 19-). p"'7y"'a is not to be resolved
into '2 and ]2'^ll, denn eben desshalb {G-B.'^^, 308 a; De. al.) but is a ;
compound conjunction = guandogtudem, 'inasmuch as' (Tu. Di. Dri.),

as usag"e clearly shows; cf. 19** 33^" 38^^ Nu. 10^^ 14^^ (all J), Ju. 6^"^,
2 Sa. i82«, Jer. 2928 38^; see G-K. § 158^3; BDB, 475 b.— Sy omny] (&
iêKXivare Trp6s = hi< nnTp (i9'"^*'), which is too rashly accepted by Ba.
— ?ipri'l] dSt has the sing-, wrong-ly. —
6. Three seahs would be (according
to Kennedy's computation, DB, iv. 912) approximately equal to 4^
—
pecks. nSo nop] ^
cre/xiddXeus, [U stmilce], which might stand either
for nop (i Sa. (as in every other instance).
i^'*) or n'?D The latter (the
finer variety) is here probably a g-loss on nop. mjy] (^ iyKpv(pla$, — U
subcinericios panes) are thin round cakes baked on hot stones or in the
—
ashes (Benz. Arch.^ 64). 8. HNDn is the Ar. laban, milk slightly soured
by fermentation, which is gfreatly esteemed by the nomads of Syria and
Arabia as a refreshing and nourishing beverage (see EB, iii. 3089 f.).
— ;
XVIII. 4-12 30I
superhuman knowledge of the great blank in Abraham's

life, and conveys a first intimation of the real nature of the
visitors. See Gu.'s fine exposition, 172 f. and contrast the ;
far less delicate handling of an identical situation in

2 Ki. 4i3"i^. — 9. The question shows that Sarah had not
been introduced to the strangers, in accordance probably
with Hebrew custom (Gu.). 10. / will return] The definite —
transition to the sing, takes place here (see on v.^). In the
original legend the pi.was no doubt kept up to the end
but the monotheistic habit of thought was too strong for
Hebrew writers, when they came to words which could be
properly ascribed only to Yah we. — On n*n ny3, v.i. — Sarah
was listening] with true feminine curiosity; cf. 27^. The
last two words should probably be rendered : she being
behind it (the tent or the door) ; cf. the footnote. II. A
circumstantial sentence explaining Sarah's incredulity (v.^^j.
—after manner of women (cf. 31^)] **quo genere
the
loquendi verecunde menses notat qui mulieribus fluunt"
(Calv.) ; ^ TO. yvvaLKta; JJ muliebria. — 12. Sarah laughed
(pnvrri) within herself] obviously a proleptic explanation of
9. nON'i] fflr nONM (wrongly).— V''?n] The superlinear points (cf. 16^) are
—
thought to indicate a reading "h. 10. njn n^!?] This peculiar phrase (re-
curring only v.^^, 2 Ki. 4^''^-) is now almost invariably rendered at the '
(this) time, when it revives,' i.e.^ next year, or spring (so Ra. lEz, ;
cf. Ges. Th. 470; G-B.^^ 202 a; BDB, 312 a; Ew. Gr. § 337 a; G-K.
§ 118 M ; Ko. 5". § 387 e) but the sense is extremely forced. It is sur-
;
prising that no one seems to suspect a reference to the period of preg-

nancy. In NHn;n means a woman in child-birth (so perhaps n;n in Ex.
1^^ [Ho. adv.^); and here we might point n;n ny? or .rn 'a, rendering
'according to the time of a pregnant woman,' or 9 months hence, lyia'?

in v.^* is no obstacle, for ni?iD is simply the time determined by the pre-
vious promise, and there is no need to add r\xr\ (© after 1721). 2 Ki. 4'^
{r\\j\ 'sS) does present a difficulty but that late passage is modelled on
;
this, and the original phrase may have been already misunderstood, as
it is by all Vns. e.g. ffi Kara rhv Kaipbv tovtov els &pas
:
2ô ^^ ^ time ;
<
when you are living 5 at this time, she being alive

' ;
'
tempore isto, '
; U
vita comite. Ba. also points as constr., but thinks .rn an old name for
spring. — HMi] ^5 —
read r\'r\\ rinK mm] ux '« N'm ; so ffir olao. dirLadev
airrov. MTis perhaps a neglect of the Q^re perpet (Nim).
13I 231-2, I
n. d'D'3 C'Na] —
cf. 24I, Jos. Ki. i^.— D'K'JD mx] Ba. Kit. more smoothly, n^k?
DTJ. — 12. r\r\y^ —
'lOfj] ffir Oijirw fxiv fioi yeyovev ^ws tov vvv presupposes an
impossible text njij^; "h n;i;{5 'p^?. The change is perhaps alluded to in
— ;
the name PW (see on 17^"^), although the sequel in this docu-

ment has not been preserved. waxed old\ lit. 'worn away,'
a strong word used, e.g.y of worn out garments (Dt. 8* 29*
etc.). — nny (only here), * sensuous enjoyment' {Liebeswonne).
— 13. This leads to a more remarkable proof of divine
still
insight : knows that Sarah has laughed, though

the speaker
he has neither seen nor heard her p21ip3, w.^'^). The inser-
tion of Yahwe here was probably caused by the occurrence
of the name in the next v. —
14. Is anything too strange for
VakweP] As the narrative stands, the sentence does not
imply identity between the speaker and Yahwe, but rather
a distinction analogous to that frequently drawn between
Yahwe and the angel of Yahwe (see on 16^). 15. Sarah —
denied it] startled by the unexpected exposure of her secret
thoughts into fear of the mysterious guests.
From the religious-historical point of view, the passage just con-

sidered, with its sequel in ch. 19, is one of the most obscure in Genesis.
According to Gu. (i74fF.), whose genial exposition has thrown a flood

of light on the deeper aspects of the problem, the narrative is based
on a widely diffused Oriental myth, which had been localised in Hebron
in the pre-Yahwistic period, and was afterwards incorporated in the
Abrahamic tradition. On this view, the three strangers were originally
three deities, disguised as men, engaged in the function described in
the lines of Homer (Od. xvii. 485 ff.) :
Kal re deol êivoiariv ioiKdrei aWoSairolffiv,

iraPToioi reX^dovTes, iwia-TpucpQffi ir6\r]as,
dvdpdiruv ii^pLv re Koi eivo/Jilirjv iipopuvres.*
Dr. Rendel Harris goes a step further, and identifies the gods with
the Dioscuri or Kabiri, finding in the prominence given to hospitality,
and the renewal of sexual functions, characteristic features of a
Dioscuric visitation (Culi of the Heavenly Twins 37 ff-)* Of the ^
numerous parallels that are adduced, by far the most striking is the
account of the birth of Orion in Ovid, Fasti, v. 495 ff. Hyrieus, an :
aged peasant of Tanagra, is visited by Zeus, Poseidon, and Hermes,

and shows hospitality to them after the repast the gods invite him to
;
Mechilta on Ex. 12^ (see p. 14 above Geiger, Urschr. 439, 442). 'in«J
;
—
'rh"^] Aq. ixera t6 KaTaTpL^TJval fie S. (less accurately) fi. r. iraXaMdijval
;
fie.— 14. p N^n^n] Jer. 32"- ^, Dt. 17^ 30".
* The appears to be very ancient. Dr. Frazer cites several

belief
which strangers are treated as deities not always to
primitive rites in —
their advantage (Golden Bough, ii. 225, 232, 234 f., and especially 237
Adonis Attis Osiris, 21 ff.).
XVIII. i3-i6 303
name a wish ; and he, being widowed and childless, asks for a son.
'
Pudor but at the end of ten months Orion is
est ulteriora loqui '
;
miraculously born. The resemblance to Gn. 18 is manifest and since ;
direct borrowing- of the Boeotian legend from Jewish sources is improb-

able, there is a presumption that we have to do with variations of the
same tale. The theory is rendered all the more plausible by the fact
that a precisely similar origin is suggested by the leading motives of
ch. 19 (see below). —
Assuming that some such pagan original is the
basis of the narrative before us, we find a clue to that confusion
between the sing, and plu. which has been already referred to as a
perplexing feature of the chapter. It is most natural to suppose that
the threefold manifestation is a remnant of the original polytheism, the
heathen deities being reduced to the rank of Yahwe's envoys. The
introduction of Yahwe Himself as one of them would thus be a later
modification, due to progressive Hebraizing of the conception, but
never consistently carried through. An opposite view is taken by
Fripp {ÂTJVy xii. 23 fF.), who restores the sing, throughout, and by
Kraetzschmar, who, as we have seen, distinguishes between a sing, and
a pi. recension, but regards the former as the older. The substitution
of angels for Yahwe might seem a later refinement on the anthro-
pomorphic representation of a bodily appearance of Yahwe but the ;
resolution of the one Yahwe into ^hree angels would be unaccountable,

especially in J, who appears never to speak of angels in the plural (see
on 19^). See Gu. 171, and Che. EB, iv. 4667 f.
i6-22a. The judgement of Sodom revealed.

The Yahwe in ""^^ breaks the connexion between ^^ and
soliloquy of
^, and is appearance a later addition (see p. 298). (a) The
to all
insertion assumes that Yahwe is one of the three strangers but this ;
is hardly the intention of the main narrative, which continues to speak
of the men in the pi. (^^). (b) In

*
' Yahwe has resolved on the
^'^
destruction of Sodom, .whereas in ^^*' He proposes to abide by the result

of a personal investigation, (c) Both thought and language in ^"^'^^ show
signs of Deuteronomic influence (see Ho. and Gu.). Di.'s assertion
^'' have no motive apart from "'^^ and ^^-y is incomprehensible
(265), that ;
the difficulty rather is to assign a reason for the addition of ^^^•. The
idea seems to be that Abraham (as a prophet cf. Am. 3') must be :
initiated into the divine purpose, that he may instruct his descendants in
the ways of Yahwe.
16. and looked out in view of Sodom [ci. 19^^)] The Dead
Sea not from Hebron, we must understand
being* visible
that a part of the journey has been accomplished. Tradition
fixed the spot at a village over 3 m. E of Hebron, called by
Jerome Caphar Barucha, now known as Be7ii Naim^ but
l6. Dip] (& + Kal Vo/xSppai.

— — :
304 Abraham's prayer for sodom (j)
formerly Kefr Bartk, from which the Sea is seen through

g-aps in the mountains (see Robinson, BR, i. 490 f.; Buhl,
GPy 158 f.). — 17. But Yahwe had said\ sc. 'to Himself;
the construction marking the introduction of a circumstance.
— 18. Seehig Abraham, etc.\ Yahwe reflects, as it were, on the
religious importance of the individual beside Him. a7id all
nations, etc.\ See the notes on 12^. u possibly refers not to
Abraham but to '•13; cf. 22^8 (We.).— 19. Comp. Dt. 6^-^.
—For I have known [i.e. * entered into personal relations

with': as Am. 3^, Hos. \'^) him in order that, etc.] There
is a certain incongruity between the two parts of the v.
here the establishment of the true religion is the purpose of

Abraham's election ; in ^^^ the end of the religion is the
fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham. —20. Re-
suming v.^^. An earlier form of the story no doubt read
npN'l instead of Hin"' ipx*1, — On the peculiar construction,
v.i. — 21. Restoring the pi. as before, the v. reads as a dis-
junctive question : JVe willgo down that we may see
whether . . , or not : we would know.
22b-33. Abraham's intercession.

22b-33a
The secondary character of ^g^g p^ 298) appears from the
following- considerations : (a) In ^^ * the men '
three) have moved
{i.e. all
away to Sodom ; in ^'^^

Yahwe remains behind with Abraham. That
17. After ^n-r^^ read 'i?j;. ^^

19. vnyi'] juaffiF omit the suffix, —
while ®rF<S treat what follows as an obj. cl. {quod, etc.), through a
misunderstanding of the sense of yT. 20. npyi] mx npyii as v.î. •? {bis)\ — —
'dlP 'IK. The particle is ignored by fflrU also by <2>, which supplies ;
.^ > ô ,
n / \\ V and omits nai '3. If the text be retained the '3 is
either corroborative causal (BDB, 473 b) but

(G-K. §§ 148 d, 159 ee), or ;
neither construction is natural. Moreover, the parallelism of clauses is

itself objectionable for whether the sin actually corresponds to the
;
'
'
•cry' is the very point to be investigated (v.^^). This material diffi-

culty is not removed by the addition of 'nyp^ (Ols.) or "hn nx? (Kit.).
Its removal is the sole recommendation of We.'s proposal to omit 1 before
D^NBn and render, *
There is a rumour about S. and G. that their sin
is great, thatvery grievous.' 21. Read with fflrE° onj^j;^,^?,!. On
it is — —
nxarr for § 138^.
r\^'^r\, see G-K.
rh^ is difficult: cf. Ex. ii\ another
doubtful pass. We. here suggests nVii, Ols. dVs.
22b contains one of the 18 Dn^b \4|Tn (corrections of the scribes).
The orig-inal reading '3K 0£)'? noy 13^y mnM is said to have been chang-ed
—
XVIII. 17-27 305
Yahwe was one of the three is certainly the view of the later editors
(see on 19^) but if that had been the original conception, it must have
;
been clearly expressed at this point, (b) In 2°'- we have seen that the
fate of Sodom still hangs in the balance, while in ^^^- its destruction is
assumed as already decreed, (c) The whole tenor of the passag-e
stamps it as the product of a more reflective age than that in which the
ancient legends originated. It is inconceivable that the early Yahwist
should have entirely overlooked the case of Lot, and substituted a
discussion of abstract principles of the divine government. Gunkel
points out that the most obvious solution of the actual problem raised
by the presence of Lot in Sodom would have been a promise of deliver-
ance for the few godly people in the city that consequently the line of ;
thought pursued does not arise naturally from the story itself, but must
have been suggested by the theological tendencies of the age in which
the section was composed. The precise point of view here represented
appears most clearly in such passages as Jer. 15', Ezk. i^^'*^- and in ;
general it was not till near the Exile that the allied problems of indi-
vidual responsibility and vicarious righteousness began to press heavily
on the religious conscience in Israel.
23. Wilt thou even sweep away^ etc.] The question strikes
the keynote of the section, —a protest against the thought
of an indiscriminate judgement (cf. Jb. 9^^). — 24. Suppose
there should he fifty ^ etc.] A small number in a city, but
yet sufficient to produce misgiving if they should perish
unjustly. and not forgive the place] In OT, righteousness
and clemency are closely allied there is more injustice in :
the death of a few innocent persons than in the sparing of

a guilty multitude. The problem is, to what limits is the
application of this principle subject? — 25. Shall not the
fudge^ etc.] Unrighteousness in the Supreme Ruler of the
world would make piety impossible : cf. Ro. 3^. —
27. / have
ventured] cf. Jer. 12^. P'Kin expresses the overcoming of a
certain inward reluctance (Jos. 7^). — dust and ashes] an
alliterative combination (Jb. 30-^^42^, Sir. 40^). As adescrip-
out of a feeling of reverence (Ginsburg, Introd. 352 f. ). The worth of

the tradition is disputed, the present text being supported by all Vns.
as well as by \(f^ and the sense certainly does not demand the sug-
;
gested restoration (Tu. Di. against KS. Ba. Gu. al.). 23, 24. f]Nn] —
E^ )J^'3n, mistaking for fjN = 'anger' : so SM^.—'Z^ end] (5 + koI iarai.
6 Si/catos ws 6 aae^-qs {^^^). —24. Nc-n] sc. \\]i=' forgive': Nu. 14^8, Is. 2^,
Hos. i^ etc. —25. n^"?/!] lit. ^ profanum
construed with jp, as 44'*",
{sit),'
oft. The full formula is ni.TD '*? 'n (i Sa. 24'' 26^^ etc.). MtfO ntj-y n*?] IJ —
{nequaquam fades judicium hoc) and <§ (which takes tDEB'n as vocative)
20
— — —— — ;
306 DESTRUCTION OF SODOM (j)
tion of human nature, the phrase recurs only Sir. lo^ ly^^. —
28. '^^'PO.?] lit. ' on account of the 5 somewhat para-
'
; a
doxical form of expression. 3O-32. Emboldened by success,
Abraham now ventures on a reduction by 10 instead of 5
(De.); this is continued till the limit of human charity is
reached, and Abraham ceases to plead. 33. weni] not to
Sodom, but simply * departed.' ^33b would be equally appro-
priate after ^^ or 22a.
XIX. 1-29. The Destruction of Sodom and Deliverance

of Lot (J and P).
The three men (see on v.^) who have just left Abraham
reach Sodom in the evening, are received as guests by Lot
(^~^), but are threatened with outrage by the Sodomites (*~^^).
Thus convinced of the depravity of the inhabitants, they

secure the safety of Lot's household (^^-22^^ after which the
city is destroyed by fire and brimstone (23-28j^
Thus far J : cf. ni,-i%

i3. i4. 16. 24. 27 .
^^ [--njn], 2- 7. 8. 18. 19. 20 .
q^^, <
;
p-Vya, »
nNnp"?, 1 ; ns£3, 3- » ;
^p\c;r\^ ^. — The summary from in ^9 is P : cf.dmSk,
nDDH ny, rwi^ (cf. 6" 9^^- ^^\ — The passage continues i8^^*- ^^^ (J''), and
forms an effective contrast to the scene in Abraham's tent (18^"^'). The
alternation of sing, and pi. is less confusing- than in 18; and Kraetzsch-
mar's theory (see p. 298 f.) does less violence to the structure of the pass-
age. Indeed, Gu. himself admits that the sing, section ^''"^^ (with ^^) is
an 'intermezzo' from another Yahwistic author (Gu. 181).
1-3. Lot's hospitality. Comp. Ju. ig^^-î^ j^. the — —

two angels] Read 'the men,' as 18^^ [ig^-^] io-i2. 16; gee the
footnote. in the gate\ the place of rendezvous in Eastern
cities for business or social intercourse Ru. 4^^- ^^, ;
Jb. 29'^ etc.— lb, 2a. Cf. iS^.— "»:'1N] Sirs! See on iS^.
—
mistake the sense. 28. jnon'] The regular use of the ending p (G-K.
§ 47 m) from this point onwards is remarkable (Di.). The form, though
etymologically archaic, is by no means a mark of antiquity in OT, and
is peculiarly frequent in Deut. style (Dri. on Dt. i"). 32. oysn] see —
on z^.
I. o'DK^Dn '38?] This word has not been used before, and recurs only
in v.^^ (in xxx also v.^^, and in C& v.^^). The phrase is, no doubt, a cor-
rection for DVj?<i7, caused by the introduction of 22b-33a^ ^^^j ^^ ^q^_
sequent identification of Yahwe with one of the original three, and
the other two with His angels (We. Coinp.'^ 27 f.). 2. nj n-n] so pointed —
— :
XVIII. 28-XIX. II 307
De.'s inference that Lot's spiritual vision was less clear

than Abraham's may be edifying, but is hardly sound.
—2b. The refusal of the invitation may be merely a piece
of Oriental politeness, or it may contain a hint of the
purpose of the visit (18^^). In an ordinary city it would
be no great hardship to spend the night in the street:
Lot knows only too well what it would mean in Sodom.
4-1 1. The
assault of the Sodomites. 4. They had —
not yet retired to rest when, etc.] That all the men of the
city were involved in the attack is affirmed with emphasis
(nVjÔ v.i,): an instance of the
: shamelessness of Sodom * '
(Ls. 3^). 5. The— unnatural vice which derives its name

from the incident was viewed in Israel as the lowest depth
of moral corruption cf. Lv. 18^^^- 20^^- ^, Ezk. i6^<^,
:
Ju. 19^2. —6-8. to sacrifice the honour of

Lot's readiness
his daughters,though abhorrent to Hebrew morality
(cf. Ju. ig^^- 3^), shows him as a courageous champion of
the obligations of hospitality in a situation of extreme

embarrassment, and is recorded to his credit. Cf. 12^^^-
— 8. inasmuch as they have come under the shado7V [i.e.
* protection ') of my roof-tree] n"ip, 'beam' (like /xeXaOpa), for
—
'house.' 9. Lot is reminded of his solitary ("'^^v!' ^^^ Eine
da) and defenceless position as a^^r (see on 12^^). ii. The —
divine beings smite the rabble with demonic blindness
(Dn"i;)p: v.i.).
only here : G-K. § 20 dy 100 o. — 3. njss] Only again 19' 33^^ (J), Ju. 19',
2 Ki. 2" 5i«.
4. DID 'cjn] probably a gloss (Ols.).— nspo] {(& &fia) an abbreviation

of njfp.Tiyi njipn-)D (Gn. 47^1, Ex. 26^8, Dt. 13^ etc.)= * exhaustively '
so Is. 56^1, Jer. 51^^ Ezk. 25^. — 6. nnnsn] om. by i&'B. — 8. '?Nn] = n!fXi7
(only again 1926 263^-, Lv. iS^^, Dt. 4*2 722 i^n,
j Ch. 208) is an ortho-
graphic variant (not in xxx), meant originally to be pronounced ^Krt.

See Dri. on Dt. 4^^, p-h]r'3] as 18'.— 9. nnhn [xxx ncjj-^ya] dwdffra ^
eK€i: 'stand back there'; cf. 'V'n^^, Is. 49-<^.— aisE' tisty'i] Consec. impf.
expressing 'paradoxical consequence' (De.) cf. 32^^ 40^3, Jb. 2^: see ;
G-K. § III If m. The inf. abs. after its vb. properly denotes continuance
of the action here its position seems due to the consec. 1, and its
;
force as if it had stood first (G-K. § ii2r,p).—ii. oni^p] (2 Ki. S'^t)

is related to ordinary blindness (p^y, Dt. 28-^ Zee. i2'*t), somewhat as
TO"!n5 (2^^) is to ordinary sleep, Jf from ^J i"i3 ('shine'), it is either a

— — — —
308 DESTRUCTION OF SODOM (j)
12-16. The deliverance of Lot. — 12. On the construc-

tion, v.i. — 13. Yahwe has sent us\ i.e. the '
three '
are agents
of Yahwe, who is therefore not present in person. — 14. Lot
warns his (prospective) sons-in-law, who were to marry his
daughters', so Jos. Ant. i. 202, 5J, Tu. Di. Dri. al. Others
(^^^ lEz. De. al.) take ''np'S as referring to the past,
which is possible (cf. 27*^). as one that jested\ see on 21^.
— 15. as the dawn appeared^ The judgement must be ac-
complished by sunrise (2^*) ; hence the urgency of the
summons. the angels^ 'the men,' as v.^ nxvoiin] who —
are at hand (i Sa. 21*). — 16. he hesitated^ reluctant, and
only half-convinced. through Yahwe's compassion on him].
— le/t him without the city] rather suggests, as Gu. (186)
holds, that there he is in safety.
17-22. The sparing of Zoar. — 17. the mountain] the

elevated Moabite plateau, which rises steeply to heights
of 2500-3000 ft. from the E side of the Sea. look not
behind thee] Such prohibitions are frequent in legends and
incantations ; comp. the story of Orpheus and Eurydice
(Ovid, Met. x. 51 ; Virg. Ge. iv. 491); cf. also Virg. Eel.
viii. 102; Ov. Fasti, v. 439. — 20. is near enough to flee to].
—lyVP] « trifle : repeated with a view to the etymology of ^^^.
common oriental euphemism (Kon. ii. p. 404), or dazzling- from excess

of light (Ac. 9^) : cf. Hoffmann, ZATW, ii. N^n^c means both
68^ ST"
*
brightness '
and blindness' '
; and in the Talmud Shabriri is a demon of
blindness (/£, iv. 517 a). & j A_»_it "î ^-» , 'hallucinations.'
12. '1JI lS''D ny] The stiff construction has led to various operations
on the text. CRU seem to have read niî d'jî D'jnq S has Î'Jnq. ;
Di. suggests that the letters 33i have been accidentally thrust into the
word T"Jnn Ho. and Gu. omit 1 in TJai (so juul) and commence a new
;
sentence there Ba. Kit. delete 1 jnn. The text may be retained if
;
we take the first cl. as indirect qn. Whomsoever thou hast here as :
*
a son-in-law, and thy sons bring forth,' etc. At end add nvn
. . . —
—
with JUUL©. 15. idd] "rare and poetic" (Di.). Here used as conj.
( = nE'N3). —
nNSDjn] <& As ^X^'s Kal ^ê\de quas habes. 16. n'?Dn] f. inf. ; U —
const. — l6b is omitted by ©A- »'•, but is found in many cursives.
17. nONM] ffiU5> have pi., which is supported by the previous an'sin
and the following chSk, though the sing, is maintained in the rest of the
section. — a'3n] for »3n ; G-K. § loy/*. — t3'?an] five times repeated in
the six vv. is thought by Ba. to be a play on the name oiS. —20.
'trsj 'nni] <&.-\-iviKiv aov, a. slavish imitation of 12^'.
— —'
XIX. 12-26 ôg

The city of Zo'ar was well known, not only in
(ffi IiTjyiop) times OT
(13^0 142-8, l5^ Jer. ^8^), but also in the time of the
Dt. 343, Is.
Crusades, and to the Ar. geographers, who call the Dead Sea the Sea
of Zugar. That this mediaeval Zoar was at the S end of the lake is
undisputed and there is no good reason to question its identity with
;
the biblical city (see Jos. BJ^ iv. 482 05"^ 261^^). Since Wetzstein, it ;
is usually located at Ghor es-Safiyeh, about 5 m. SE from the present
shore of the Sea (cf. Di. 273 Buhl, GP, 271 Smith, HG, 505 ff.
; and ; ;
esp. Dri. DB, iv. 985b ff.). The situation of the city naturally gave
birth to the secondary legend that it had been saved from the fate of
the adjacent cities on account of the intercession of Lot while the ;
name in Heb. readily suggested the etymology of ^'^^
23-28. The catastrophe. — Brevity in the description

of physical phenomena is in accord with the spirit of the
Hebrew legend, whose main interest is the dramatic pre-
sentation of human character and action. 23, 24. The
clause when Lot entered Zoar^ presupposes ^''"22^ and, if
the latter be from a separate source, must be deleted as
an interpolation (Gu.). The connexion is improved by the
excision : just as the sun rose the catastrophe took place
(G-K. § 164 h).— sulphur and fire (Ezk. 38^2, Ps. ii«)] a
feature suggested by permanent physical phenomena of
the region (see below). — Yahwe rained . . .from Vahwe]
A between Yahwe as present in the angels and
distinction
Yahwe as seated in heaven (Di.) is improbable. We must
either suppose that the original subject was the men *
(so Gu. cf. V.13), or that mn^ nXD is a doublet to

:
D)C)^n"p the latter phrase, however, is generally considered

:
to be a gloss (Ols. KS. Ho. Gu. Kit.).— 25. "^îj'A] see on

2^. — 26. Lot's wife transgresses the prohibition of ^^, and
is turned into a pillar of salt.
The literal interpretation of this notice, though
still maintained by
Strack, is clearly inadmissible. The

mentioned as still exist- pillar is
ing in WS
10', Jos. Ant. i. 203 the reference obviously being to some
;
curious resemblance to a female figure, round which the popular
21. TJS have accepted thee (lit. lifted up thy face

'riNtyj] *
opp.' *
' :
'33 n'BTi) —here a good sense (as 32^1, 2 Ki. 3^^ Mai. i*^^-), more fre-
in
quent in the bad sense of partiality in judgement (Lv. 19^^, Dt. 10",
Mai. 2^, Jb. 1310 etc.).
23. MX HKS' cf. 15^^—25. SnH (v.S)]

N!i'] ;+ JH? IXS^ HB't?, aS V.^^. © tD')'?
26. The V. stands out of its proper position (note the 1 consec, and the
suffs.), and belongs to ^'"^ rather than to the main narrative (Gu.).
— ' —
— —
310 DESTRUCTION OF SODOM (j, p)
imag-ination had woven a legend connecting it with the story of Lot,

Whether be identical with the hug-e cylindrical column, 40 ft. hig-h,
it
on the E side of &ehel Usdum, described by Lynch, is, of course,

doubtful.* The fact that 0. Usdum is on the side of the lake, SW
while Zoar was on the SE, would not preclude the identification it :
would simply mean that the whole region was haunted by the legend
of Lot. But the disintegration of the rock-salt of which that remark-
able ridge is mainly composed, proceeds so rapidly, and produces so
many fantastic projections and pinnacles, that the tradition may be
supposed to have attached itself to different objects at different
periods. See Dri. DB, iii. 152.
27, 28. Abraham's morning visit to the spot where he

had parted from his heavenly guests forms an impressive
close to the narrative. and he looked^ etc.\ an effective
contrast to 18^^. the smoke of the land was afterwards
believed to ascend permanently from the site of the guilty
cities (Wisd. lo'^). —
The idea may have been suggested by
the cloud of vapour which generally hangs over the surface
of the Dead Sea (see Di.).
29. (From P see p. 306.) Gu. conjectures that the v.
:
formed the introduction to a lost genealogy of Lot; and

that its original position in P was after 13^^*. The
dependence of P on J is very manifest. the cities in [one 0/]
which Lot dwelt] as 8*, Ju. 12^.
The destruction of the Cities of the Plain. — The
narrative of ch. 19
appears at first sight to be based on vague
an actual
recollection of
occurrence, — the destruction of a group of cities situated in what is now
the Dead Sea, under circumstances which suggested a direct inter-
27. "*?»«— DDB"i] preg.

constr. 27b. must have been interpolated after
the expansion of ch. 18 by vv.^^*^"^ 28. n33n pN does not occur else- —
where. The variations of .uifflr^ warrant the emendation ii^.tV^ (Kit.).
— {tfân -lO'pa] the same simile in Ex. 19^^ (also J).— nb'p] Ps. 11983 148^1.—
29. nDijnn] 'the overthrow,' The usual verbal noun is njcno
Slit. \ey.
(Dt. 2922, Is. i' [rd. D11? for D'-ij], I3^^ Jer. 49^8 ^040^ ^m. 4"!), which is
never used except in connexion with this particular judgement. The
unhebraic form of inf., with the fact that where subj. is expressed it is
always (even in Am.) DM'?n and not n^n\ justify the conclusion that the
phraseology was stereotyped in a heathen version of the story
(Kraetzschmar, ZATW, xvii. 87 f.). Comp. the use of the vb. 1921- 25- 29^
Dt. 2922, Jer. 20^^ La. 4^— lana] jm. iDjjna is easier. i& m.r 'na.
* I cannot find the proof of Gu.'s assertion that this pillar is now
called '
the daughter of Lot.
XIX. 27-29 3^1
position of divine power. It seems unreasonable to suppose that a
legend so firmly rooted in Hebrew tradition, so full of local colour, and

preserving so tenaciously the names of the ruined cities, should be
destitute of historic foundation ; and to doubt whether any such cities
as Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed in the Dead Sea basin appears an
unduly sceptical exercise of critical judgement. It has been shown,
moreover, that a catastrophe corresponding in its main features to the
biblical description is an extremely probable result of volcanic and
other forces, acting under the peculiar geological conditions which
obtain in the Dead Sea depression. According to Sir J. W. Dawson,
it might have been caused by an explosion of bitumen or petroleum, like
those which so frequently prove destructive in Canada and the United
States (see Exp, 1886, i. p. 74 Modern Science in Bible La7tds, 486 ff.).
;
A similar theory has been worked out in elaborate and picturesque

detail by Blanckenhorn in ZDPV, xix. 1-64, xxi. 65-83 (see Dri. p.
202 f.).* These theories are very plausible, and must be allowed their
full weight in determining the question of historicity. At the same time
it requires to be pointed out that they do not prove the incident to be
historical and several considerations show that a complete explanation

;
of the legend cannot be reached on the lines of physical science, (a)

It is impossible to dissociate the legend altogether from the current OT
representation (13^° 14^- ^^) that prior to this event the Dead Sea did not
exist, —
an idea which geology proves to be absolutely erroneous. It is
true that the narrative does not state that the cities were submerged
by the waters of the Dead Sea and it is possible to suppose that they
;
were situated either south of the present margin of the lake, or in its
shallow southern bay (which might possibly have been formed within
historic times). The fact, however, remains, that the Israelites had a
mistaken notion of the origin of the Dead Sea and this fact throws ;
some suspicion on the whole legend of the cities of the Plain.' {b) It
*
is remarkable that the legend contains no mention of the Dead Sea,
either as the cause of the catastrophe, or as originating contemporane-

ously with it (Gu.). So important an omission suggests the possibility
that the Sodom-legend may have arisen in a locality answering still
more closely to the volcanic features of the description (such as the
'dismal H
arras of Arabia [Meyer]), and been transferred to the region
'
of the Dead Sea valley, (c) The stereotyped term npsrto (see on v. 2^),
which seems to have been imported with the legend, points clearly to an
earthquake. as the main cause of the overthrow and there is no mention ;
of an earthquake in any Hebrew version of the story (see Che. EBy

—
4668 f.) another indication that it has been transplanted from its native
environment. (cT) The most important consideration is that the
narrative seems to belong to a widely diffused class of popular tales,
* Physical explanations of the catastrophe were also current in ancient

times. Strabo (xvi. ii. 44) says that it took place hirh aeKxixCbv Kal dvacpv-
arrjfxdTcjv Trvpbs Kal dep/j-cSv vdarcav aacpaXTioduiv re Kal denadwv, in consequence

of which the lake burst its bounds, the rocks took fire, and so on. Cf.
Jos. BJy iv. 484 f.. Ant. i. 203 ; Tacitus, Hist. v. 7.
—
312 LOT AND HIS DAUGHTERS (j)
many interesting" examples of which have been published by Cheyne in

The New World, 1892, 239 ff. It is indeed obvious that no physical ex-
planation of the cataclysm furnishes any clue to the significance of the
ang"els' visit to Lot but a study of the folklore parallels shows that the
;
connexion between that incident and the destruction of Sodom is not

accidental, but rests on some mytholog-ical motive whose orig"5n is not
as yet explained. Thus in the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, Met.
viii. 625 flf.), an ag-ed Phrygian couple give shelter in their humble
dwelling- to Zeus and Hermes in human guise, when every other door
is closed against them. As a reward for their hospitality they are
directed to flee to the mountain, and there, looking back, they see the
whole district inundated by a flood, except their own wretched hut,
which has been transformed into a temple, etc. The resemblance here
is so great that Cheyne
{I.e. 240) pronounces the tale a secondary
version of Gn. 19 but other parallels, hardly less striking, present the
;
same combination of kindness to divine beings rewarded by escape

from a destructive visitation in which a whole neighbourhood perishes
for its impious neglect of the duties of hospitality. —
On these grounds
some writers consider the narrative before us to be a Hebrew adaptation
of a widespread legend, its special features being suggested by the
—
weird scenery of the Dead Sea region, its barren desolation, the cloud
of vapour hanging over it, its salt rocks with their grotesque formations,
its beds of sulphur and asphalt, with perhaps occasional conflagrations
bursting out amongst them (see Gu. 188 f.). Dr. Rendel Harris
{Heavenly Twins, 39 ff.) takes it to be a form of the Dioscuric myth, and
thus a natural sequel to 18^"^' (see p. 302 above). Assyriologists have
found in it a peculiar modification of the Deluge-legend (Jast. ZA, xiii.
291, 297 ;RBA^, 507), or of the World-conflagration which is the astro-
nomical counterpart of that conception {ALTO^, 360 ff".) both forms of the
:
theory are mentioned by Zimmern with reserve {KAT^, 559 f.). What- —
ever truth there may be in these speculations, the religious value of the
biblical narrative is not affected. Like the Deluge-story, it retains the
power to touch the conscience of the world as a terrible example of
divine vengeance on heinous wickedness and unnatural lust and in ;
this ethical purpose we have another testimony to the unique grandeur

of the idea of God in ancient Israel.
XIX. 30-38. Lot and his Daughters (J).
This account of the orig-in of the Moabites and Ammonites

is a pendant to the destruction of Sodom, just as the story
of Noah's drunkenness (g^^^) is an appendix to the Deluge
narrative. Although it has points of contact with ^-^s, it is
reallyan independent myth, as to the origin and motives of
which see the concluding Note (p. 314).
Source. —
Though the criteria of authorship are slight, there is no
reason to doubt that the section belongs to J : note the two daughters,
——
XIX. 30-38 3^3
and the mention of Zoar in ^^
; and cf. yiT n;n, *^ »4, with 7^ ; and n-j*?:}!,
nyHh 31. 33-35. 37. 38^ with 2928.
30a is a transition clause, connecting what follows with

^"28, esp. with ^'^"22.
—z« /A^ mountain] of Moab ; cf. v.^'^.
he was afraid to dwell in Z.\ lest it should be consumed,

though the motive involves a slight discrepancy with 21.
30b. in the cave] probably a particular cave which was
named after Lot (cf. i Ki. 19^). It is pointed out that ]^w, a
possible variant of tOiS is named as a Horite (Troglodyte ?)
in 362<^- 22- 2^. The habit is said to have persisted till modern
times in that region (Di. Dri. after Buckingham, Travels in
Syria [1825]). — 31. there is no man in the earth] *
We are the
survivors of a universal catastrophe.' So Gu., following
Pietschmann, Gesch. der Phonisier, 115; Jastrow, ZAy xiii.
298 (see below). The usual explanations no man in :
'
the vicinity' (Di. al.), or all men shrink from us' * will
(Dri.), hardly do justice to the language.— n^jn-iâ 7]^n3] So
in theJewish marriage formula ^<J;^^? h2 niIND yrh hv^ N3X1
(De.).— 32. The intoxication of Lot shows that the revolting,
nature of the proposal was felt by the Hebrew conscience.
*' When the existence of the race is at stake, the woman is
more eager and unscrupulous than the man" (Gu. 192).

I^DXp] repeated in ^*- ^^, anticipating the etymology of ^'^.
33> 35- ^^ knew not, etc.] still minimising Lot's culpability

(cf.
38i6ff-).
—
37. 3Ni0] as if=3NC, ^from a (my?) father'
(v.t.). —38. ^'Sy'i?] not son of my people,' which would be
'
30 end] joifflrF + 10^.-31. 'Sy Nu] in this sense only Dt. 25".— 32. nD^]
MX '3*?. —
33. ppcni] (so 35-36j. G-K. § 47^.— Nin nh'^n] (xxx Kinn). On
omission of art. with demonstr., see G-K. § 126^; cf. 30^^ 32^^ 38^^!
I Sa. 19^''. —
n'^NTiN] ffir + Tr]P vOKTa iKeivTjv. — ncipnî] *
Appungunt desuper,
quasi incredibile (Je.).
' ! In reality the point probably marks a super-
fluous letter (cf. v. 2^). —34. '3K] ffir «'3n. —37. 3NiD] fflr + X^yovara, 'Ek toO
Trarpds /iiov (['JaKp). For the equivalence of iD and a, cf. Nu. n^sf. (nrp
= (& Mw5a5), Jer. 4821 (nys'p, Qr. = nysiD, Kt.), etc.
Mi. ^^1D, see ZATW, :
xvi.322 f. The real etymolog-y is, of course, uncertain. Homm. ing-eni-

ously and plausibly explains the name as a contraction of 3xisx, 'his
mother is the father,* after the analogy of a few Assyrian proper names
{Verhand. d. XIII. Orient.-Kong. 261). The view of Kn. and De. that
iD is Aram. 'ID (= 'D), 'water,' and that the word meant 'water {i.e,
semen) of a father,' hardly deserves consideration. —38. 'Djrjn] ®r'A/4/4dj',
6 v\h% Tov yevovs fiov, missing the significance of the ja {v.s.).

314 LOT AND HIS DAUGHTERS (j)
nothing distinctive of any child, but son of my (paternal) '
kinsman (see 17^*). Note the formal correspondence with

'
pay \33, which (and not f^W simply) is the invariable designa-
tion of the people in OT (exc. Ps. 83^, and MT of i Sa. ii^^
[ffi
'^
^^r^])' Both etymologies are obviously pointless except
as expressing the thought of the mothers, who, as is usual
in J, name the children.
Original idea of the legend. —

very natural to regard this account
It is
of the orig-in of Moab and Ammon as an expression of intense national
hatred and contempt towards these two peoples. It has further been
surmised (though with little proof)* that incestuous marriages, such as
are here spoken of, were customary in these lands, and gave an edge
to this Hebrew taunt (so Di.). That the story was so understood by
later readers is indeed probable but how precarious it is to extend
;
this feeling to ancient times appears from ch. 38, where the ancestry
of the noble tribe of Judah (held in special honour by J) is represented
as subject to a similar taint. The truth seems to be that while incest
was held in abhorrence by Israel (as by the ancient Arabs see We. ;
GGN, 1893, 441), it was at one time regarded as justified by extreme

necessity, so that deeds like those here related could be told without
shame. Starting from this view of the spirit of the narrative, Gu.
(190 f.) gives a suggestive interpretation of the legend. It is, he thinks,
originally a Moabite legend tracing the common ancestry of Moab and
Ammon to Lot, who was probably worshipped at the cave referred *
'
to in v.^. V.^S however, presupposes a universal catastrophe, in which

the whole human race had perished, except Lot and his two daughters.
In the ordinary course the daughters would have been doomed to
barrenness, and mankind would have become extinct and it is to avert
;
this calamity that the women resolve on the desperate expedient here
described. That such an origin should have been a subject of national
pride is conceivable, though one may fail to find that feeling reflected
in the forced etymologies of ^''•. If Gu.'s theory is anywhere near the
truth, we are here on the track of a Moabite parallel to the story of the
Flood, which is probably of greater antiquity than the legend of 19^*.
Lot is the counterpart of the Hebrew Noah and just as the Noah of
;
g20ff.
steps into the place of the Babylonian Deluge-hero, so the Lot of
jgSOff.
^3^3 identified with the entertainer of deity in the heathen myth
which probably lies at the basis of i9^*^*t
* Of. the similar conjecture with regard to Reuben (p. 515 below).
It is difficult to know what to make
of Palmer's curious observation that
in that region a wife is commonly spoken of as bint (daughter) : Desert
of the Exodus, 478 see Dri. 205.
ii. ;
t The connexion with the Deluge-legend was anticipated by Jast. in

the art. already cited, ZA, xiii. 197 f. —
It is a flood of water which
destroys the inhospitable people in the parallel from Ovid cited above
(p. 312).
— —a;
XX. I 315
Ch. XX. Abraham and Sarah at the Court of Gerar (E).
The chapter deals with an incident closely similar to that

recorded in i2ô~'^^. It is indeed impossible to doubt that the
two are variants of the same tradition a view which is con- ;
firmed rather than shaken by Strack's enumeration of petty

differences. A close comparison (see p. 364 f. below) appears
to show that the passage before us is written from a more
advanced ethical standpoint than that represented by ch. 12 :
note the tendency to soften the harsher features of the in-

cident (^' ^- ^^), and to minimise the extent of Abraham's
departure from strict veracity.
Source. — The narrative is the first continuous excerpt fi-om E and ;
contains several stylistic and other peculiarities of that document esp. :
°'C'*^^['7]>
** ^* "• ^^ " (^^ is a gloss)
•"'I'"'' hdk (J nns^'), " n^S (J n"?), ^ see
; ; ;
also the notes on iVjjj, ^ -"^k tdx, 2. is ; j^^^

6 .^^pj^;^
.
i,
12 (^f. Di.
279 Ho.
.
;
—
159; Gu. 193). The appearing- of God in a dream is characteristic of
E and
; the conception of Abraham as a prophet (') is at least foreign
to the original J (but see on 15^). Another circumstance proving the
use of a source distinct from J^ or P is that Sarah is here conceived as
a young womancapable of inspiring passion in the king (ct. 18^^ 17^').
Lastly, it is to be observed that ch. 20
is the beginning of a section
(20-22) mainly Elohistic, representing a cycle of tradition belonging to

the Negeb and, in particular, to Beersheba.
1, 2. Introductory notice. —The method of the narrator,

Gu. points out, is to let the story unfold itself in the col-
loquies which follow, vv."- containing just enough to make
these intelligible. — I. the land of the NegeJ)\ see on 12*.
between Kadesh (14'^) and Shtlr (16^) would be in the extreme
S of the Negeb, if not beyond its natural limits. The words
Tiaa the paronomasia) are not a nearer specifica-
1JJ1 (note
tion of the previous clause, but introduce a new fact, —
further stage of the patriarch's wanderings. There is there-
fore no reason to suppose that Gerar lay as far S as Kadesh
I. yen] see n'. — 3J|rt ny]N] 'an py only 24^2^ Jos. 15^^ Ju. i^'^
(J), Nu.
132*(E?).— ni^] (ioi9'26i-«-" [TJ3 ÔJ], 20-28, 2 Ch. 14^2!. I) iQ. Tepapa,
5 5-«i|; commonly identified, on the authority of OS, 2402^*' {airixo^'^''-
ÊXevdepoTrdXeus Ke Trpbs v&rov), with the modern
ffi)iJ.eioii Gerar (* place Umm
of water-pots 6 miles SSE of Gaza (so Rowlands, Holy City, i. 464
'),
Robinson [who did not find the name], BR, ii. 43 f. [cf. i. 189], Ho. Gu.
—
3l6 ABRAHAM AT GERAR (e)
(v.t.). — The bareness of the narration remarkable, and

2. is
was felt by the Greek translators to be wanting lucidity in
{v.i.). —Abzmeleck, king of Gerar] = Milk [my] "H^?'?^ ^ is
a genuine Canaanite name, compounded with the

father,* is
name of the god Milk (see Baeth. Beitr. 37 ff.)- I* occurs
as the name of the governor of Tyre [Abi-milki) in the TA
Tablets (149-156). There is no trace here of the anach-
ronism which makes him a Philistine prince (ch. 26) Gerar ;
is an independent Canaanite kingdom. took Sarah] sc. as

wife same ellipsis as 19^*.
; the
3-7. Abimelech's dream. This mode of revelation is —
peculiar to E (21I2.14 22iff- 28^2 31I1.24 3^5 ^52^ Nu. 12^ 229-20),
and probably indicates a more spiritual idea of God than the
theophanies of J. It must be remembered, however, that
according to primitive ideas the 'coming' of God (so 312^,

Nu. 22^0) would be as real an event in a dream as in waking
experience. —
4a. had not drawn near her] Not an explana-
al.). This suits 26^ (according- to which it was in Philistine territory),

10^^ and 2 Ch. 14^^ ; but hardly 26"^-, and it is certainly inconsistent
with the notice "wv) pn? s'lij pa. There happens to be a Wddt Gerur, c.
13 miles SW
of Kadesh, which exactly ag-rees with this description ;
and so Trumbull {Kad.-Bar. 62 f,, 255) and others have decided that this
must be the biblical Gerar, while others think there may have been two
places of the name (Che. EB, ii. 1705 f.). The question really turns on
2(517. 2if. SQ fai- a,s the present reference is concerned, we have seen that
.
the arg-ument rests on a misconception and it is not even necessary to ;
assume (with KS.) that ^* is a redactional clause, or (with Ho. Gu.) that
l^
part of E's narrative has been suppressed between ^* and It is true
that DB'O has no antecedent in E, and it is, of course, conceivable that it

was written by R'^ to connect the following with a previous section of
E by RJ^ to mark the transition from Hebron (18^) to the
(Gu.), or
Negeb. A
redactor, however, would not have been likely to insert the
notice '
between Kadesh and Shur unless he had meant ' it as a definition
of the site of Gerar. — 2. "Sx "i?x] = 'said regarding' is rare: 2 Ki. 19^^^
Jer. 2218 2719 ; cf. ^N, v.", Ju. 9^*, Ps. 3=* yi^".— After Athnach, ® inserts
icpo^Tjdr) Twi^ fioij iariv, /xtj irore airoKTelvucTLv avrbv ol Avdpes
yap el-jretv 6'ti
TTJs (from 26'^).

7r6Xews 81 avTifv
3. '?y] «x mm
hv. cf. 21I', Ex. 18^, Nu. 12^ 13^-* (E), Gn. 21'-^ 26=*^ (J),
Jos. 14^ (R), Ju. 6''.
—
'?j;3 n'?j;n] a married woman, Dt. 22^2. 4. To 'ia in —
the indefinite sense of * people {Leute) we may compare Ps. 43^ Dn.*
1
1'-'^
;but the sense is doubtful, and the idea may be that the whole
nation is involved in the punishment of the king (Str.). Eerdmans
{Komp. der Genesis^ 41) offers the incredible suggestion that 'u here has
— — — — —
XX. 2-9 317
tlon of Abimelech's gfood conscience (which depended solely

on the purity of his motives), but of Yahwe's words in *^.
Why he had not come near her, we gather fully from ^^.
4b, 5' Abimelech protests his innocence. innocent folk] —
*such as I am' [v.i.). — 5. ^Îip'ona] 'unsuspectingly'; cf.
2 Sa. 15I1, I Ki. 22^*; in the wider sense of moral integrity

the phrase occurs i Ki. 9*, Ps. 78^^ loi^. — 6. have kept thee
back frotn siiming {i.e. inexpiably) against tne\ The sin is
not mere infringement of the rights of a privileged person

(Di.), but the moral offence of violating the marriage bond.
—suffered thee not] by sickness (v.^^). — 7. The situation is
altered by this disclosure of the facts toAbimelech if he :
now retains Sarah, he will be on every ground deserving of

punishment. he is a prophet] in a secondary sense, as a
'man of God,' whose person and property are inviolable:
cf. Ps. 105^^. —On intercession as a function of the prophet,
1219-23, Jer. 7I6 etc.
Dt. 920, I Sa. f ; but cf. Jb. 0^2^.— that
thou may est live] or '
recover.'
The section (^ '^) exhibits a vacillation which is characteristic of the

conception of sin in antique relig-ion. Sin is not wholly an affair of the
conscience and inward motive, but an external fact a violation of —
the objective moral order, which works out its consequences with the
indifference of a law of nature to the mental condition of the transgressor
(cf. the matricide of Orestes, etc. and see Smend, ATRG"^, 108 f.). At
;
the same time God Himself recognises the relative validity of Abimelech's
plea of ignorance (^). It is the first faint protest of the moral sense
against the hereditary mechanical notion of guilt. But it is a long way

from Abimelech's faltering protestation of innocence to Job's unflinching-
assertion of the right of the individual conscience against the decree of
an unjust fate.
8-13. Abimelech and Abraham.— 9. a great sin] i.e.,

a. though unwittingly brought about,
state of things which,
involves heavy judgement from God (see on ^-7 above). deeds
its late Jewish sense of an individual 'heathen.' Geiger, Graetz, al.

regard the word as a gloss or a corrupt dittography. (3& has ?dvos
dypoovv Kal dUaiov. —

5. jVjrj] only here in Hex. E is addicted to rare;
expressions. For 's? 'i, cf. Ps. 26^ 73^2 ^ ^^qo] f^j. j^jj^q q_k. § 75 ^y. .
— b I"}] = permit,' 31^ Nu. 20" 2i23 2212 (E), Ex. 1223 (J); 3^»(R), Dt. 18",
*
10I9 (D) see Offy i. 192.

Jos. :
8. n'mnn] «x(!Er5Jpr. h^.—g. Mhn'&v no] & y\ ^.ClL ]iVr> = i'» 'ntyy no,
— —
3l8 ABRAHAM AT GERAR (e)
that are not done] are not sanctioned by the conventional

code of morals: cf. 34^, 2 Sa. 13^2 etc. —To this rebuke
Abraham (as in 12^^*) has no reply,and Abimelech proceeds
in — 10 to inquire into his motive for so acting. HO —
n^S")] ' What possessed thee?' (v,i.),—ll-lZ' Abraham's self-
exculpation, which is at the same time the writer's apology
for his conduct, consists of three excuses: (i) he was

actuated by fear for his life ; (2) he had not been guilty of
direct falsehood, but only of mental reservation (3) the ;
deceit was not practised for the first time on Abimelech, but
was a preconcerted scheme which (it is perhaps implied) had
worked well enough in other places. Whether 2 and 3 had
any foundation in the Elohistic tradition, or were invented
by the narrator ad hoc (Gu.), we cannot now determine.
II. There is no piety ip'^'^. J^^T) in this place] Religion was
the only sanction of international morality, the ger having
no civil rights cf. 42^^ see Bertholet, Stellung d. Fremden^
; :
15. Cf. 12^2, —

12. Besides^ she really is my sister] Marriage
with a half-sister on the father's side was frequent among

the Semites (Smith, Kl^^ 191 f.), and was allowed in ancient
Israel (2 Sa. 13^^), though prohibited by later legislation
(Dt. 2722, Lv. i8^- ^^ 20"). — 13. When God caused me to
stray] The expression is peculiar, as if God had driven him
rashly adopted by Ba. Ho. Kit.— "TNtan] (& TjfidpTo/xev.—io. 0'><1 ""?] tL ^
iviSu)v ; so F. Ba. conj. riNi; Gu. n'-yj. The translation given above is
;
taken from Bacher, ZATW, xix. 345 ff., who cites many examples from
NH of the idiom (lit. What hast thou experienced ? ').— II. '?] ux 'nxT '3
*
»3.
— p"]]= *
[I should act otherwise] only," a purely asseverative force
etc. :
(BDB) seems to me insufficiently established by Dt. 4^ i Ki. 21^^, 2 Ch.

28^^ Ps. 32^—12. njDN] ux D30N[n?], as 18^^ Nu. 22"; but cf. Jos. f^.
These are all the occurrences in Hex.— 13. >vr^r}] xu. nynn. The constr. of
D^'^SN {pi. entin.) with pi. pred. is exceptional, though not uncommon (31'^
35'^, Jos. 24'^), and does not appear to be regulated in our present text
by any principle. A tendency to substitute sing, for pi. is shown by
I Ch. 1721 cpd. with 2 Sa. 7^3 and it is probable that the change has
;
taken place in many cases where we have no means of tracing it see :
Str.2 77 G-K. § 145/. A kindred and equally inexplicable anomaly is

;
the sporadic use of the art. with this word (so w.*- "). Both phenomena
are probably survivals from a polytheistic form of the legend. -sk] juu.+
'mViD pNOi (as 12^).— DipD.rSa] determined by following relative clause;
so Ex. 2o24, Dt. ii^^.
— —
XX. io-i6 319
forth an aimless wanderer (Di.). It proves that in E, as in
J and Abraham was an immigrant in Canaan.

P,
14-18. Abimelech makes reparation to Abraham.—
14. The present to Abraham in 12^^ was of the nature of
mohar or purchase-price of a wife here it is a compensation ;
for injury unwittingly inflicted. The restoration of Sarah is,

of course, common to both accounts. 15. The invitation to —
dwell in the land is a contrast to the honourable but
peremptory dismissal of 12^^^-. — 16. see, I give to thy . . .
brother\ For injury done to a woman compensation was due

to her relatives if unmarried, to her husband if married or
betrothed (Ex. 22^^^-, Dt. 22^^^') : Abimelech, with a touch
of sarcasm, puts Sarah in the former category. 1000
(shekels) of si'lver] not the money value of the gifts in v.^^
(Str.), but a special present as a solatium on behalf of Sarah.
— a covering of the eyes] seemingly a forensic expression for
the prestation by which an offence ceases to be seen, i.e., is
condoned. The fig. is applied in various ways in OT ; cf.
Jb. 924, Gn. 3221, Ex. 238, I Sa. 128.—The cl. nriDiii ys-riNi is
obscure, and the text hardly correct {v.z.). The general

sense is that Sarah's honour is completely rehabilitated.
1 1D3 ^Vn (fr.^^) wrongly.— nnsts'i onayi]

14. ]H^] jml(& pr. probably a gl.
fr. 12^^, being the only instance of rinzp in an E context. 16. nm
this —
7]nN —
Kin] mSc ravra iarai aoi eh rifxrjp toO Trpoawirov <rov Kal wdcrais rats fiera
aov ; U
hoc erit tibi in velamen oculorunt ad omnes qui tecum sunt [et
quocungue perrexeris] S -<^ \ »^' - » "^ \ vd-»Gl-» OOl %.2i\ JOIO
;
- .Vnv ^ ^\l)5 ]i . V ujA-*-2Lk»J. The difficulties of the v. com-

mence here. The suggestion that N^n refers to Abraham (lEz.) may be
dismissed, and also the fantastic idea that Sarah is recommended to
spend the money in the purchase of a veil, so that she may not again be
mistaken for an unmarried woman (24®°)
! The first qn. is, Whose eyes
are to be covered ? Sarah's own— ("n)), or those of the people about her
('iji Vd^), or both (Vdî [with jxtfflr]) ? Di. adopts the second view, taking
11) as dat. comm. To
De. forcibly replies that dat. comm. before
this
dat. of reference is unnatural hence he takes the first view (t)^, dat. of
:
ref., and h'2h = bezugs aller ) 7.^., ** Her credit with her household, which
;
had been injured by her forcible abduction, would be restored, and the
malicious taunts or gossip of men and maids would be checked, when
they saw how dearly the unintentional insult had been atoned for"
(Ba.). A better sense would be obtained if ^^^? '?3^ could be taken as
neuter: 'all that has befallen thee' (Tu. Ho. al.). That is perhaps
;
320 BIRTH OF ISAAC (j, E, p)
17. God healed Ah,\ The first explicit intimation (see *• ')
that Abimelech had been smitten with a bodily malady,

whose nature is indicated by the last word '^^.})_. 18. A —
superfluous and inadequate explanation of ^^, universally
recognised as a gloss note also rK\T\'^, ""Vy] see on 16^. ;
—
XXI. I -2 1 .
—Birth of Isaac and Expulsion of Ishmael
(J, E, and P).
The birth, circumcision, and naming of Isaac are briefly
recorded in a section pieced together from the three sources

(1-'^). Then follows a notice of the weaning festival (^), to
which, by a finely descriptive touch (^), is linked the
Elohistic version of the origin of the Ishmaelites (^^^2^). A
comparison with the Yahwistic parallel (ch. i6) will be found
below (p. 324).
Analysis. — "^^'^
are from P (who by the way
ignores altogether the
expulsion of Ishmael [see on 25^]) : obs. the naming by
the father and
the exact correspondence with 16'^ in ^, circumcision (^), the chronology
(5) ; and the words D\n'7x, 2^. 4 .
^yô, ^b (cf. 1721) . n:^ nxp, ^. ^ is to be
assigned to J ("I'îpi'? i3> v.t.) ;and also, for the same reason, '. There
remain the doublets ^* U ^^ and ^* ^^ Since the continuity of P is sel-
II
dom sacrificed, ^^ is usually assigned to that source (nin% a scribal error),

leaving ^* to J (niiT, nps). ^^ goes with (therefore ] v.t.) and there"^
: ;
remains for E the solitary half-verse ^* (d^h'^n), which cannot belong to

P because of the different etymology implied for pni:\ So Ho. Gu. Di. ;
Str. differ only in assigning the whole of ^ to E. The J fragments —

la. 2a. 7. 6b
form a Completely consecutive account of the birth of Isaac
which, however, is not the sequel to ch. 18 (see on ^), and therefore
impossible with the present text hence Gu.'s emendation Tinx (pf. ;
ij nnx w. ace. Jb. 3^^) is not unattractive.

:
nnaii '?3"nx]] Untranslatable. —
(Sc Kai TrdvTa dXrjdevaov ; U
quocungue perrexeris : mementoque te depre-
hensam ; ^ . > 1 vAmn I isO,lD ^\d ^Ô ('about all wherewith thou
hast reproached me ') ;
^<^ nnDin'N mONT nd b2 h]}\ The change to FinDJi
(2 s. pf.) is of no avail, the difficulty being mostly in which

Vb-ns'i,
cannot be continuation of înx (Tu. al.), or of DU'y. did? 1]^, but must with
MT accents be taken with '01. The rendering and before all men thou '
shalt be righted' (Di. De. Dri.) is the best that can be made of the text.
The easiest emendation is that of Gu. nnsi iVs riNi= and thou in all this : '
(affair) art justified,' though the sense given to i'?3 has no clear example
in OT. The more drastic remedies of Ba. do not commend themselves.
— 18. nin'l jua D'n'?N.
: —
XXI. 1-8 321
belongs to J** rather than J^ (Gu.).— ^'^^ is wholly Elohlstic : D\nVN, ^^ "•
!»• 20. ; noN, !''• 12. 18. îjt, Q^B,^ 18. 18
and rare (J
'1^
ntj'y, 122 ; P '•?
jnj, 1720) ;
expressions like non, ^*- i^. i9 ncp nnoD, ^^ nK'p nm, 20. Further character-
; ;
istics are the revelation of God by night {^^'•), and in a voice from
(i').
heaven
1-7. The birth of Isaac. — 2. a son to his old age] so v.^

2^^86 2^3 ^^20 (^2i\\
J). AH the sources emphasise the fact that
Isaac was a late-born child ; but this section contains
nothing implying- a miracle (ct. chs. 17, 18). — 3-5. The
naming and circumcision of Isaac, in accordance with 17^^- ^^
(P). —
6a. God has made laughter for me] Both here and in
^^ laughter is an expression of joy, whereas in iS^^^- 17^^ it
expresses incredulity. —6b, 7 is the Yahwistic parallel. It
has been pointed out by Bu. (Urg. 224: so Kit. KS. Ho.)
that the transposition of ^^ to the end of '^
greatly improves
the sense, and brings out the metrical form of the original
(in Heb. 4 trimeters)
Who would have said to Abraham,

"Sarah gives children suck"?
For I have borne him a son in his old age I
Every one that hears will laugh at me I
8-10. Sarah demands the ejection of Ishmael.— 8.

The occasion was the customary family feast of the weaning
of Isaac (Benz. Arch.^ 'Si)* The age of weaning in modern
Palestine is said to be 2 or 3 years {zb. 116); in ancient
Israel also it must often have been late (i Sa. i^^^-, 2 Mac.
never used by P sensu bono (Str.).

la. nps] 2. D'n'?N] (& mn\ 3. — —
n%n] pointed as pf. with art. (i82'). 6a. pn-a] The sj P^^ never occurs —
outside of Pent., except Ju. 162* (where pn'^] should probably be read) and
Ezk. 23^2 (but see Corn, and Toy), the Qal being used only in connexion
with Isaac (17" 18^2. 13. 15 2i6j^ while Pi. has a stronger sense (19^^ 21^ 26^
39^^-", Ex. 32^). The other form pnb (not in Pent.) is mostly later than
Jer. (except Ju i627, i Sa. i8^ 2 Sa. 2^^ 6^-^^): in four cases (Am. 7«- !»,
even the name pnv. appears as pn'^:. It will be seen

Jer. 3328, Ps. 105^)
that in Gn. we have no fewer than 4 (17" 18^2 216a. 6b) qj. ^ (218?) different
suggestions of a connexion of pnv: with ^J pns. Analogy would lead us to
suppose that in reality it is a contraction of î<p.^r., in all probability the
name of an extinct tribe (cf. —6b.
'^n^d?':, see G-K.
"^Nprii;, etc.). prt^]]
§ 10^. — 7. '?!?p] Aram. ; in — On the modal use of

Heb. rare and poetic.
pf. (' would have said '), G-K. § 106 p Dri. T.
cf. of species; § 19. d'jd] pi.
;
::f. Ex. 2i22, I Sa. 17'*^ Ca. (Di.). (& has sing. —
2^ i& ry y^pei vjpi'?] iv fiov.
21
— — —
322 EXPULSION OF HAGAR (e)
y27f.j^
— 9. playing with Isaac her son\ The last words are
essential to the sense, and must be restored with i^^ (see
Jub. xvii. 4, with Charles's Note). It is the spectacle of
the two young children playing together, innocent of social
distinctions, that excites Sarah's maternal jealousy and
prompts her cruel demand. The chronology of P, according
to which Ishmael was some 17 years old, has for uncritical
readers spoiled the eflfect and given rise to the notion of ;
Ishmael as a rude lad scoffing at the family joy, or to the still
more fanciful explanations current in Jewish circles.* — 10.

with my son\ If this presupposes an equal right of inheritance
as between the sons of the wife and the concubine (Gu.), it
also shows a certain opposition to that custom : cf. the

case of Jephthah, Ju. ii^^- (see Benz. ArchJ^ 296). this
slave girl {p^^)\ In E, Hagar is not Sarah's maid, but simply

a household slave, who has become her master's concubine.
II- 13. Abraham's misgivings removed. 11. on —
account of his son] whom he loves as his own flesh and
blood for the mother, as a slave, he has no particular
;
affection. — 12. It is revealed to him (by night : cf. ^*) that

Sarah's maternal instincts are in accord with the divine
purpose. shall a seed be called to thee] i,e.^ * in the line of
Isaac shall thy name be perpetuated (Is. 41^ cf. Ro. 9^, '
Heb. 11^^). The same idea otherwise expressed in P

^
jyi9. 2ij^
— j^. Hagar's child (still unnamed) is also Abraham's
seed, though his descendants are not to be known as such.
—a great nation (au.^^)] cf. 17^^
9. pnsp] fflc iralôvta iierh 'I<raa/f rod vlov iavrijs

; so (cf. Zee. 8*). U
The sense mock * play with in a bad sense) would require a following-
' (* '
39^*- " may be explained after

3, but it is doubtful if it actually occurs.
26^ in 19^'* it means simply play as opposed to serious behaviour (cf.
;
*
'
Pr. 26^^). See above on v.^. On the pausal —

see G-K. § 52 n. 11 — , —
end] fflr + 'la-fiarjX (wrongly). 12. ^T.] (& + rb prj/j-a. — 13. mx(& read —
bna 'uV riNin noNn Vna also in U^. : ['j] "ij^— d''^] so v.^^ 46^ (E).
idliOKcv) is based on For other Haggadic interpretations, see

this pn^p.
Ber. R. § liii ; Dri. DB,
and Gen. 210. Unchastity (cf. 39"- ^''),
ii. 503b,
idolatry (Ex. 32^, C^ Ra), attempted murder (2 Sa. 2^^, Pr. 26^^), etc., are
among the crimes inferred from this unfortunate word.
— — ;
XXI. 9-19 323
l4-i6. Mother and child in the desert.— The suffer-

ings and despair of the helpless outcasts are depicted with
fine feeling and insight. — 14.a skin of water] non (v.i.)y the
usual Eastern water-bag, answering to the girby of the
modern Bedouin (Doughty, Ar. Des. i. 227, ii. 585). and the
boy he placed on her shoulder {yd.)\ cf. ^^- ^^. —the wilderness
î)]
of Beersheba (see on implying that Abraham dwelt
near^ but not necessarily at^ Beersheba. 15. she cast the —
boy (whom, therefore, she must have been carrying) under
one of the bushes] for protection from the sun (i Ki. 19^').
To save P's chronology, De. and Str. make cast = eilends *
niederlegen '
—with what advantage does not quite appear.
— 16. a bowshot off] out of sight of her child, but within
hearing of his cry. —The last cl. should be read with ffi
and the boy lifted up his voice and wept (v.^^) : the change of
subject being due to the false impression that Ishmael was
now a grown lad. Hagar's dry-eyed despair is a more
effective picture than that given by MT.
17-19. The
Divine succour comes in two forms: a
voice from heaven (^^^•), and an opening of Hagar's eyes (^^).
— 17. God heard] (twice) preparing for an explanation of

^NyoK^*\— While God Himself hears, the medium of His
revelation is the Angel of God (as 28^2 ^jH 32^, Ex. 14^^),
who by a refinement peculiar to E (22^^) speaks yh?;;z heaven.
This goes beyond the primary conception of the Angel see :
—
on 16^. 18. Hagar is encouraged by a disclosure of the
future greatness of her son. 19. opened her eyes] cf. 3^- ^.
14. non] Only here P*- ^^) = Ar, hamit ( /^ Iiamita, rancid ?). On '
the forms DDn, ncn, or non, nan, see G-K. § 95 /. '1:1 -^y dip] The trans-
— '
position r\G^p-h]l D^ "i.^,n-nNi was suggested by Ols., and is by far the best
remedy for an awkward constr. In MT
would be necessary to take it
'n-DN) as second obj. to jrin, and

as a parenthetic circumst. cl.
nDDtr'?y djp
(so Di. De. Str.). It is an effort to evade the absurdity of a youth of
17 being carried on his mother's back. 15. Dn'BTi] 'desert shrubs' —

see ;
on 2^— 16. pmn] G-K. § 113 h.—n&p 'ineOD] lit. 'as (far as) bowmen
do'; (& (hffel tSôv poX-^v, 5 |Z\ • O *^ |, • V> ^|, hardly imply a different
text. On 'inp9 (ptc. Pal. ^nna,— only here), see G-K. %y^kk.—'M) we'm]
(5 TI?n nVn« [i-h?] N'a'-:.— 17b. îp-Sx] MSS and ux 'pTK.— 19. d'd n»<a]
26i»).
(5 + D''n,—attractive ! (cf.
;
324 EXPULSION OF HAGAR (e)
The tact of the narrator leaves us in doubt whether the well

was now miraculously opened, or had been there all along
though unseen. In any case it is henceforth a sacred well.
20, 21. Ishmael's career. Here we expect the naming —
of the child, based on v.^''' this has been omitted by R in
:
—
favour of J (16^^). 20. The hoy grew up^ amidst the perils
and hardships of the desert, a proof that God was with him, —
—he became a bowmaft] (pt. nc^P nah v.i.)^ the bow being :
theweapon of his descendants (Is. 21^'''). 21. The wilderness —

of Pdran is et-Tih, bounding the Negeb on the S. His —
mother took him a wife from the land of Egypt\ her own
country (v.^) : see p. 285 above.
Comparison of ch. 16 with 21^'^^ — That

these two narratives are
variations of a common legendary theme
obvious from the identity of is
the leading motives they embody viz. the significance of the name
:
Ishmael (16^^ 21^'); the mode of life characteristic of his descendants

(16^^ 2 1 2^) their relation to Israel
; and the sacredness of a certain well,
;
consecrated by a theophany (i6'''' ^^ 21'^).* Each tale is an exhaustive

expression of these motives, and does not tolerate a supplementary
anecdote alongside of it. Ch. 21, however, represents a conception of
the incident further removed from primitive conditions than 16: contrast
the sympathetic picture of nomadic life in 16^^ with the colourless notice
of 21^°; in 16, moreover, Hagar is a high-spirited Bedawi woman who
will not brook insult, and is at home in the desert while in 21 she is a ;
household slave who speedily succumbs to the hardships of the wilder-

ness. In E the appeal is to universal human sympathies rather than to
the peculiar susceptibilities of the nomad nature his narrative has a ;
touch of pathos which is absent from J it is marked by a greater ;
refinement of moral feeling, and by a less anthropomorphic idea of God.

—See the admirable characterisation of Gu. p. 203 f.
20. ntyp nm 'n'l] * and he became, growing up, an archer ' ; 3J

j'uvenis Sagittarius (so C*^). But na'p is Hit. eipijix., the syntax is pecu-
liar, and, besides, the growing up has been already mentioned. The
true text is doubtless that given above and implied by (& iyhero Sk
To^&rrjs. ^\l\ mD
(OOI >g^ \ »t*i also implies n^j?. but there are further ;
divergences in that Vn. nm = shoot (not so elsewhere), might be a

'
'
by-form of 231 (see on 49^^ and cf. 31= shooter,' in Jer. 50''^, Jb. 16^^)
; '
but it may be a question whether in these three cases we should not

substitute nan for nm, or whether in this pass, we should not read noh
n^j: with Ba. (see esp. Jer. 4^^, Ps. 78^). The rendering a shooter, an *
archer' (De.), is clumsy and the idea that n^p is an explanatory gloss
;
on nan (KS.) is not probable.

* The well is not identified in E. Gu.'s view, that it was Beersheba,
has little to commend it.
—— — —
XXI. 20-26 325
XXI. 22-34* Abrahams Covenant with Abimelech

(E and J).
Two distinct narratives, each leading up to a covenant

at Beersheba, are here combined. (A) In the first, Abraham,
acceding to a request of Abimelech, enters into a covenant
of permanent friendship with him, from which the place
derives its name *
Well of the Oath ' (22-24. 27.
31)._(b) In the
other, the covenant closes a long-standing dispute about
springs, and secures the claim of Abraham's people to the
wells of Beersheba, where Abraham subsequently plants a
(^s- 26. 28-30. 32. 33)^
sacred tree
Sources. — The passage, except
some redactional touches in ^^'^y has
usually been assigned to E
(We. Kue. Di. Ho. Str.). Its disjointed
character has, however, been felt, and tentative solutions have been
proposed by several critics (cf. KS. Anm. 92, 93 Kraetz. Bundvorstg. ;
14, 31 v. Gall, est. 46 f.

; OH. ii. 30 f.). The most successful is that of
;
Gu., who assigns 25. 26. 28-30. 32-34

^Q j^ ^j^g j-gg^ J.Q £. ^^j^g reasons will
appear in the notes. The analysis rests on the duplicates (^'^ H ^'',
?7b 32aj
11
material discrepancies of the section the linguistic criteria
a^j^jj ;
being indecisive as between J and E, though quite decisive against P

(npn, nw, ^3 j n"")? nis, ^7; nnj;3, ^). But the connexion with ch. 20, and D^"^'?^?
in 2^, prove that the main account is from E
^''^-
while m.T, ^, and niaya, ^, ;
show the other to be J. Since the scene is Beersheba, the Yahwistic

—
component must be J''. ^^'^ have been considerably modified by R,
Procksch (10 holds that in the original E w."^-^- preceded
ff.) ^'2°; his
detailed analysis being almost identical with Gu.'s.
22-24. Abimelech proposes an oath of perpetual amity

between his people and Abraham's, and the latter consents
(E). — 22. Ptkol {v.t.)y his commander-in-chief y seems here
merely a symbol of the military importance of Gerar: other-
wise 262^^-, where P. is a party to the covenant. 23. Swear
to me here\ in the place afterwards known as Beersheba (^^).
Abraham's departure from Gerar, and Abimelech's visit to

him in Beersheba, must have stood in E between 20^"^ and
2i22 (cf. 2613-26). 24. This unrcscrvcd consent is incon-
sistent with the expostulation of 25, 26 (J), which pre-
22. 73'fli] ®
pr. ffai'Oxofa^ 6 vvfKpayuiyb^ avrov (fr. 26^^). Spiegelberg
{OLzy ix. 109) considers this one of the few Egyptian names in OT
—
=p^H-r{j)y ** the Syrian." 23. dk] G-K. § 149 c. idji pj] {proles etsoboles) —
an alliterative phrase found in Is. 14^, Jb. i8^^ Sir. 41^ 47^t. 25. —
n3im] " must be corrected to njVi " (Ba., cf. G-K. %ii2tt): *xx n'an. But
— ——
326 THE COVENANT WITH ABIMELECH (e, j)
supposes strained relations between the parties, and repeated

disputes about the ownership of wells. Note (i) the fre-
quentative n?^"^*!,
(2) the pi. ' wells '
(retained by ^), (3) the
fuller parallel of which shows that the right to
26^^- ^^^•,
several wells had been contested. And as often as Abraham

took Ahimelech to task about the wells Abimelech would . . .
answer] —that he knew nothing of the matter (so Gu.).

27. Continuing 2* (E). Giving (or exchange?) of presents
seems to have been customary when a covenant was made
(i Ki. 15^^, Is. 30^, Ho. 12^). The action would be no suit-
able answer to v.^^. —
28-3O (J), the seven ewe lambs are set
apart for the purpose explained in ^^; but the art. shows
that they must have been mentioned in the previous context.
It is clear from ^^ that the lacuna is in J, not in E ; while
Abimelech's question ^9 proves that the lambs were not an
understood part of the ceremony (Di.). —30. that it (the
acceptance of the present) Tnay be a witness^ etc.] so that in
future there may be no quarrel about Beersheba. 31 be- —
longs to E : ^V^^^y cf. 23f. Dn"'3^', cf. ^T.—V2f nxn =
; seven *
wells,' is here explained as Well of the Oath,' the oath being

*
the central feature of the berith. The etymology is not

altogether at fault, since V?^^ may mean lit. to * put oneself
under the influence of seven,' the sacred number (Her. iii. 8;
Hom. //. xix.
243 ff. Paus. iii. 20. 9). 32a. J's parallel to
; —
27b^*
— 33. The inauguration of the cult of Beersheba (J cf. :
MT is probably right, with freqve. sense of pf. g-iven above. For the
following nON'i (instead of tdni), see Dri. T. § 114^3. —iNa] <&. (\)pe6.Tiav, ut
sup. —
28. I^în] xix (which also omits tin) jns. De. thinks this one of the
few cases (G-K. § 127 ^) where art. determines only its own word, and
not the whole expression.— 29. Rd. nK-aan with juu. (2°). mp^ («x jmaS)]. —
On sufF. cf. G-K. § 917^ The form is chiefly pausal and though the only ;
other ex. in Pent. (Gn. 42^) is E, 30^^ ("'?—) is J, and the form cannot be
—
considered distinctive of E. 31. yasy nxn] fflr ^pkap opKia-fiov, but in ^^ $. tov
6pKov. The constr. (num. in gen. after sing, noun) has been supposed by
Sta. to be Canaanite idiom (cf. ysiN nnp, 23^). 33. hi^n] Ar. 'a^l, Aram. —
* ^^ would be a natural conclusion to E's narrative (cf. ^2), but for
the fact that that source never speaks of a Philistine occupation of Gerar.
The last three vv., however, seem to have been altered by a compiler.
It is probable that J gave an explanation of the name of the well, con-
necting it with the seven lambs so VP (jsmn yac^'T nT3).
;
— —
XXI. 27-34 32 7
26^^). Among the sacra of that famous shrine there must

have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been planted
by Abraham (see on 12^). The planting of a sacred tree
is no more a contradictio in adjecto (Sta. in v. Gall, 47) than
the erecting of a sacred stone, or the digging of a sacred
well. The opinion (KS. Ho.) that the subj. is Isaac, and
that the v. should stand after 26^^, rests on the incorrect as-
sumption that no stratum of J puts Abraham in connexion
with Beersheba. 'El 'Oldm] presumably the pre-Israelite
name of the local ntimen, here identified with Yahwe (Gu. :
see 16^^). Canaanite analogies are *HA.os 6 Kal KpoVos (Eus.

PrcBp. Ev. and XpoVos ayr^'paros (Damasc. Prhic,
i. 10, 13 ff.),
123). 34. — The assumption

that Beersheba was in Philistine
territory being incompatible with ^2^, the v. must be an in-
terpolation. —
On the historical background of these legends,
see after 26^^.
Beersheba modern B^r-es-Sebd, in the heart of the Negeb,

is the
some 28 miles SW
from Hebron, and 25 SE from Umm el-&erdr. Its
importance as a religious centre in OT appears not only from its fre-
quent mention in the patriarchal history (22^^ 26^'^* ^^^- 28^" 46^*')> but still
more from the fact that in the 8th cent, its oracle (cf. 25^^) was resorted
to by pilgrims from the northern kingdom (Am. 5"* 8^^). V. Gall (44 ff.)
questions the opinion that it was originally a group of 7 wells, holding
that there was but one, whose name meant Well of the Oath.' But that *
**
among the Semites a special sanctity was attached to groups of seven
wells " is shown by Smith {RS^, 181 f. cf. No. ARW, vii. 340 ff.) and : ;
the existence of a plurality of wells at Bi'r es-Seba' has never been dis-
puted. See Rob. BR, i. 204 ff. Smith, HG, 284 f. Robinson, Bihl. World,
; ;
xvii. (1901), 247 ff. ; Gautier, tb. xviii. 49 ff. Dri. ET, vii. (1896), 567
; f. ;
Joel and Amos^ (i90i)> P- 239 f. ; Trumbull, ET, viii. 89.
Ch. XXII. The Sacrifice of Isaac (E and R^^).
The only incident in Abraham's life expressly character-

ised as a * trial ' of his faith is the one here narrated, where
the patriarch proves his readiness to offer up his only son
nShn, Ass. aslu\ 1 Sa. 22^ 31^^ [in i Ch. 10^2 hJ'k] t, in both cases prob-
ably denoting a sacred tree. The word seems to have been strange to
Vns. ffir dpovpav, Aq. 5evdp<2va, 2. (pvTeiav,
: U
netnus, etc. The substitution
of n-jt^N proposed by Sta. {v.s.) is uncalled for, though see EBy 4892 f.
D*?!!;] xix D'îyn. —34 is wanting in ST^ (ed. Ginsburger).
—
328 THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (e)
as a sacrifice at the command of God. The story, which is
the literary masterpiece of the Elohistic collection, is told

with exquisite simplicity ; every sentence vibrates with re-
strained emotion, which shows how fully the author realises
the tragic horror of the situation.
Source, —The original narrative consists of vv. ^*^*'

^^ In spite of mn'
in ^^- ^^, this belongs to E : cf. D'n''7^[n], ^- ^' ^ ^- ^^
; nriy » . the revelation
by night, ^^- ; the Angel calling from heaven, ^^.
— On "•^' see below.
Comp. Di. Ho. Gu.
1-8. Abraham's willing preparation for the sacri-

fice. — I. God tempted Abraham] i.e.^ tested him, to "know
what was in his heart " (Dt. 8^), —an anthropomorphic re-
presentation : cf. Ex. 16* 2o20, Dt. 8i« 13* 338 etc. This
sentence governs the narrative and prepares the reader for
a good ending. — 2. thy son — thine only one—whom thou lovest
— Isaac\ emphasising the greatness of the sacrifice, as if to
say that God knows right well how much He asks. the land
of Moriyyah {T\'>'''iybT\y^ All attempts to explain the name and
identify the place have been futile.
The prevalent Jewish and Christian tradition puts the scene on the
Temple mount at Jerusalem (nnian nn, 2 Ch. 3^ t6 ViihpLov 8pos, Jos. Ant. ;
i. 224, cf. 226). But (a) the attestation of the name is so late and unre-
liable that a question whether the Chronicler's use of it rests on a
it is
traditional interprelation of this passage, or whether it was introduced

here on the strength of his notice, (b) Even if nna[n] were a genuine
ancient name for the Temple hill, it is not credible that it was extended
to the land in which it was, and still less that the hill itself should be
described as * one of the mountains m the region named after it. '
There is reason to suspect that the name of a land may have been modi-
fied (either in accordance with a fanciful etymology [v.^*], or on the
authority of 2 Ch. 3^) in order that the chief sanctuary of later times
I. 'ttrt 'm nnx] 15^ —

noj DM'7Nni] The reluctance of grammarians to
admit that this can be the main sent. and apod, after time determina- ,
tion, is intelligible (De. Di. Gu.), the order being that of the circumst.
el. ; but it without sophistical distinctions, to take it any
is difficult,
other way. could only mean when God had tempted A.,'
As cir. el. it *
which is nonsense and to speak of it as a Verumstdndung of the fol.

;
iDN'i (De.) is to deceive oneself with a word. The right explanation in

Dri. T. § 78 (3). —
cmnN] repeated in fflrU cf. ". 2. nnon] The word was ; —
no doubt popularly connected with sj hnt as used in ^^ (cf. jjul HNniDn, Aq.
TT)v KaTa<f>aprj, S. rrji dxraaias, U visionis), though a real derivation from
that V is impossible. (& t^v vx/z-qXifiv (cf. I2«). <S has l^Vak)]?, QT^J
'
XXII. 1-8 329

might not be altogether ignored in the patriarchal history. The
Samaritan tradition identified Moriah with Shechem.* This view
hay been revived in two forms (i) that the name is a corruption or :
variant of -tiid in 12^ etc. (Bleek, SK, 1831, 520 ff. Tu., v. Gall [see ffir ;
in/.]) and (2) that it is a corruption of Dncrt^ ('land of the Hamorites

;
[33^^]) (We.). But both these names are too local and restricted to suit
the context and the distance is perhaps too great.
; Of the attempts
to recover the original name, the simplest is "I'^Nfj 'n, which would be a
natural designation of Palestine in E t see on 10^^. If the legend be :
very ancient, there is no certainty that the place was in the Holy Land
at all. Any extensive mountainous region, well known at the time, and
with a lingering tradition of human sacrifice, would satisfy the condi-
tions. Hence, Che.'s suggestion that the land of Musri is to be read '
'
{EB, 3200 Wi. GI, ii. 44), is not devoid of plausibility.

; On Gu.'s
solution, see below.
which I will na7ne more precise direction

to thee\ When this
was imparted, does not appear. While the outward pre- — 3.
parations are graphically described, no word is spared for the

conflict in Abraham's breast, a striking illustration of the —
reticence of the legends with regard to mental states.
— 4.
saw the place afar off] The spot, therefore, has already been
indicated(v. 2). We are left to imagine the pang that shot
through the father's heart when he caught sight of it.
5. Another touch, revealing the tense feeling with which the
story is told : the servants are put off with a pretext whose
hollowness the reader knows. '*The boy carries the — 6.
heavier load, the father the more dangerous knife and fire " :
(Gu.). It is curious that OT has no allusion to the method

of producing fire. — 7, 8. The pathos of this dialogue is
inimitable : the artless curiosity of the child, the irrepressible
N3n'?i3 ('worship'). —3. 'a 'wm] So Nu. 2222. The determination is

peculiar. That it means the two slaves with whom a person of import-
ance usually travelled (Gu.) is little probable. It is possible that in this
legend Abraham was conceived as a man of moderate wealth, and that
these were all the servants he had. 5. nj-iy] On nb as demonst. of —
place, see BDB, s.v. ('rare, chiefly in E ') ; cf. 2>^^. — 7. 'ja 'jjn] 'Yes,
my son ' ; the * Here am I ' of EV is much too pompous. ffiÛ excel-
lently : tL iffTiv, T^Kvov; Quid visyfili? — 8. na-n] jju (& om. art. (Ba.).
See ZDPV, vi. 198, vii. 133.—V. Gall {CSt 112) seems in error
when he says this was a Jewish tradition.
t But it is doubtful if the restoration can claim the authority of 5,
Ch. 3I also.
for that Vn. reads V»'Q^1? I^CL^ in 2
— — — — —
'
affection of the father, and the stern ambiguity of his reply,

can hardly be read without tears. Note the effect of the
repetition: and they went both of thern together (^- ^). God
will provide^ nXT, Ht. Mook out'; as 41^3 [Dt. 12I3
3321]^
I Sa. 1 6^- ^^. The word points forward to v.^*.

9-14. The sacrifice averted. — 9, 10. The w. describe
with great minuteness the preliminary ritual of the npiy in
highly technical language (^"^y, î^V, ^n3)\ v.i. II, 12. At —
the extreme moment Abraham's hand is stayed by a voice
—
from heaven. II is certainly from E; nin^ must therefore
be a redactional accommodation to v.^^ (cf. <S i^f-)- The —
repetition of Abraham expresses urgency as 46^, Ex. 3* (E), ;
I Sa. 3^^. —
12. The Angel speaks in the name of God, as
16^^, 21^^. now I know, etc.] Thus early was the truth
taught that the essence of sacrifice is the moral disposition
(Ps. 51^^*-). — 13. ram for the human
The substitution of the
victim takes place without express command, Abraham re-
cognising by its mysterious presence that it was provided *
by God for this purpose. 14a. The naming of the place is

an essential feature of the legend, and must therefore be
assigned to E. — 'î<"|''. niH"' alludes to v.^; but that any
sanctuary actually bore this name is scarcely probable. In
truth, it seems to be given as the explanation, not of a name,
but of a current proverbial saying (Sta. GVI, i. 450), which
can hardly be the original intention (see below). 14b. The
words î^"3,!.
i^Ji^^ ">'"!? yield no sense appropriate to the
context.
MT mig-ht be rendered (a) In the mount of Yahwe he (it) is

:
*
seen' (Str.), or (b) ' mount of Y. men appear' [for worship] (Dri.
In the
220, cf. VL^ inf.), or (disregarding- ace.) (c) In the mount where Y. is *
9. iny] of the arranging of the wood on the altar, i Ki. 18^, Nu. 23*,
Is 30^^ —npy] (6t7r. Xey.) in NH means to 'bind the bent fore- and hind-
legs of an animal for sacrifice (Dri.) '
: © avixirodicras. — lO. ^nv is techni-
cally to cut the throat of a sacrificial victim (Jacob, ZATW, xvii. 51).
II. ni,r] ^ D'nSg ; —
nnx '?:n] *a ram behind'
so v.^^ so Tu. Di. De.
13. ;
Str. (3:^, 2. in »x<&^'^^, Juh. and Heb. MSS have inx 'k,
temp, sense).
*a [certain] ram' which may be nichtssagend, but is preferable to
; MT
(Ho. Gu.).— Rd. also (with ffiS') )n^,5 (ptcp.) for pf. 1202] (R iv (t)VT(^ —
(TaêK, S. iv dLKTvcp (np^f?), Aq. iv avxveQvi, U inter vepres. — 14. The
paraphrase of C*-' is interesting :
'
And A. worshipped and prayed there
— —
XXII. 9-19 33^
seen ' in this case the saying would be hn"): nin' (^'**), and ^^^ would
:
merely mean that it was used in the Temple mount. All these are ob-
viously unsatisfactory. With a slight change (n.na for '3) the cl. would
read In the mount Y. appears (so fflr), or (with ni<y. for nN-j;.) In . . .
'
'
*
—
Y. sees (US'). The text has probably been altered under the same
'
tendency which gave rise to ^nb in v,^ and the recovery of the ;
original is impossible. Gu., with brilliant ingenuity, conjectures that

the name of the sanctuary was '?Nn; (2 Ch. 20^^) this he inserts after ;
wnn and restores the remainder of the v. as follows nn^ n'vn tcn tb'k
; :
D'nSs riKV = |for he said, ** To-day, in this mountain, God provideth."
15-19. Renewal of the promises: Conclusion. 15.

The occasion seemed to a Jehovistic red. to demand an
ampler reward than the sparing of Isaac ; hence a supple-
mentary revelation p"*^?^) is appended. — 16. By myself I
swear] cf. Ex. 32^^ (also R-'^), elsewhere Is. 45^^, Jer. 22^
49^^t. — nin^ DX3] lit. *

murmur of Yahwe,' an expression for
the prophetic inspiration, whose significance must have been
forgotten before it could be put in the mouth of the Angel.
Even P (Nu. 14^^) is more discriminating in his use of the
phrase. — 17. occupy the gate of their enemies] i.e.^ take
possession of their cities (ffi TroXeis) ; cf. 24^*^. — 18. by thy
seed . . . bless themselves (Hhhp.)] 80*26*; cf. Dt. 29^^, Is.
65^^, Jer. 42, Ps. 721^1. See on i23.— 19. The return to
Beersheba is the close of E's narrative, continuing v.^*.
The secondary character of^^"^^ is clear not only from its loose
connexion with the primary narrative, but also from its combination
of Elohistic conceptions with Yahwistic phraseology, the absence of
originality, the improper use of nin' dn^, etc. Cf. We. Comp.^ 20 ; Di.
291 ; Ho. 165.— The view of De. (324 f.) and Str. (82), that ""^âre from
a J parallel to
22^"^*, is untenable.
The difficult question of the meaning of this incident is approached

from two sides, (i) Those who regard it as a literal occurrence in the
life of a man of eminent piety, holding views of truth in advance of
his age, are undoubtedly able to give it an interpretation charged

with deep religious significance. Familiar with the rite of child-
sacrifice amongst the surrounding heathen, the patriarch is conceived
{p^ for c^), in that place, saying before the Lord, Here shall generations
worship. So it is said at this day. In this mountain A. worshipped
before the Lord.' hxt; ni.T nn?] <&. iv ry Bpei KiJ/jios &<f>dirfy TB in monte
Dominus videbit, <S 1|-kkJ Ut^ M^ IjCL^.

16 end] Add 'Jsp as v.^ : so <&1B. — 18. '\^^ 3?^] elsewhere only 26^
2 Sa. 12^.
as arrested by the thought that even this terrible sacrifice mig-ht

rightly be demanded by the Being to whom he owed all that he was ;
and as brooding over it till he seemed to hear the voice of God calling
on him to offer up his own son as proof of devotion to Him. He is
led on step by step to the very verge of accomplishing the act, when an
inward monition stays his hand, and reveals to him that what God really
—
requires is the surrender of the will that being the truth in his previous
impression but that the sacrifice of a human life is not in accord-
;
ance with the character of the true God whom Abraham worshipped.
But it must be felt that this line of exposition is not altogether satisfying.
The story contains no word in repudiation of human sacrifice, nor any-
thing to enforce what must be supposed to be the main lesson, viz. that ,
such sacrifices were to find no place in the religion of Abraham's

descendants. (2) Having regard to the origin of many other Genesis
narratives, we must admit the possibility that the one before us is a
legend, explaining the substitution of animal for human sacrifices in
some type of ancient worship. This view is worked out with remark-
able skill by Gu. (211-214), who thinks he has recovered the lost name
of the sanctuary from certain significant expressions which seem to
prepare the mind for an etymological interpretation viz. nxn; d'hS^, ^
:
(cf. ^^); d'oSn n-i.:, ^2 and '?:n [njm] K-jn, ^^ From these indications he
;
concludes that the original name in ^* was '?Nn: and he is disposed to

;
identify the spot with a place of that name somewhere near Tekoa,
mentioned in 2 Ch. 20^^ (^^'i: in i Ch. f- is excluded by geographical
considerations). Here he conjectures that there was a sanctuary where
the custom of child-sacrifice had been modified by the substitution of a
ram for a human being. The basis of Gn. 22 would then be the local
cultus-legend of this place. Apart from the philological speculations,
which are certainly pushed an exti-eme, it is not improbable that
to
Gu.'s theory correctly expresses the character of the story; and that
it originally belonged to the class of aetiological legends which every-
where weave themselves round peculiarities of ritual whose real origin

has been forgotten or obscured. —
An older cultus-myth of the same
kind is found in the Phoenician story in which Kronos actually sacrifices
his only son TeoivS (nin' = Tn; ?) or 'IcSouS (ti; ?) to his father Uranus
(Eus. PrcEp. Ev. i. 10, 29). The sacrifice of Iphlgeneia, and the later
I
modification in which a hind is substituted for the maiden, readily
suggests itself as a parallel (Eurip. Iph, Aul. 1540 if.).
XXII. 20-24.-7%^ Sons ofNahor (J,R).
In the singular form of a report brought to Abraham,

there is here introduced a list of 12 tribes tracing their
descent to Nahor. Very few of the names can be identified ;
but so far as the indications go, they point to the region

E and NE of Palestine as the area peopled by the Nahorite
family. The division into legitimate (20-23j ^^d illegitimate
— — ,
XXII. 20-24 333
P*) sons expresses a distinction between the pure-blooded

stock and hybrid, or perhaps alien and subjugated, clans
(Guthe, GVI, 5).
The vv. bear the unmistakable sig-nature of a Yahwistic genealogy :
Cf. N\T 03 20.24^ ^ ^22.26 jo21 j^SS . 21a

^^ jqIS . 23b
^^ ^19 (io29 254). -,"7, 28
(see p. 98). Of P's style and manner there is no trace and with ;
reg-ard to Uz and 'Aram, there is a material discrepancy between

'
the two documents (v.^^ cpd. with lo^^^-). The introductory formula
'n.t 'in nnN is not exclusively Elohistic (see on 15^), and in any case
would be an insufficient reason for ascribing- (We. Comp.^ 29 f.) the whole
section to E. —
See Bu, Urg. 220 ff. The genealogy appears to have
been inserted with reference to ch. 24, from which it was afterwards
separated by the amalgamation of P (ch. 23) with the older documents.
Its adaptation to this context is, however, very imperfect. Here
Abraham is informed of the birth of Nahor's children, whereas in the
present text of 24 the grandchildren (Laban and Rebekah) are grown
up. Moreover, with the excision of the gloss ^^^ {v.i.')^ the only point
of direct contact with ch. 24 disappears and even the gloss does not
;
agree with the view of Rebekah's parentage originally given by J

(see on 24^^). Hence we must suppose that the basis of the passage is
an ancient genealogy, which has been recast, annotated, and inserted
by a Yahwistic writer at a stage later than the composition of ch. 24,
but earlier than the final redaction of the Pent.
20. ry-^h'o] see on ii^^.— ^hn nim*?] 1122.-21. py] in \o^ a subdivision
of Aram, is here the principal (nn?) Nahorite tribe (cf. 36^8). na (Bai^f —
Baiy^^, etc.)] mentioned in Jer. 25^3 after Dfidan and Tema, is probably
the Bdzu of Esarhaddon's inscr. {KIB, ii. 130 f.), an unidentified dis-
trict of N Arabia (so Jb. 32^). '?NiD|t)] —
unknown see Praetorius, ;
ZDMG, 1903, 780,— D-JJ* '3^? (Traripa Supcoj/) is possibly a gloss (Gu.),
but the classification of the powerful Aramaeans (see on lo^^) as a
minor branch of the Nahorites is none the less surprising see p. 334 :
—
below. 22. "i??'3] The eponym of the D^-nip?. But whether by these the
well-known Chaldaeans of S Babylonia are meant is a difficult question.
Probabihty seems in favour of the theory that here, as in 2 Ki. 24^, Jb.
i", an Arabian (or rather Aramaean) nomadic tribe is to be understood,
from which the Bab. Dn^3 may have sprung (Wi. AOF, ii. 250 fF. ;
Gu.). The result has a bearing on the meaning of Arpaksad in lo^^

(see also on ii^^). —
iTn ( AâO)] probably the HazH mentioned after Bdzu
in Esarhaddon's inscr. (above). v^hs and f]h-]: {'le\Sd<p, 'leSXdtp) are not
known. With the former have been compared Palm, i&ihs (Levy,
ZDMG, xiv. 440) and Sin. wiJS (Cook, Gl. 98 Lidz. Hdb. 352), both ;
personal names. —
'?N^n?] as personal name 24^^^-
(J), 2520 282- " (P).
— 23a. is a gloss (Di. Gu.) excluded by the general scheme of the
genealogy and by the number 8 in ^sb^ The last consideration is
decisive against Di.'s view that the original text was njjn-i-nNi jn^'DXi.
24. w^S'a^] cas, pend. : G-K. §§ iwh, 147^. B'j.^>s=7raXAa/cis (see Sta.
G VI, i. 380) a Hittite origin is suggested by Jensen {ZDMG, xlviii.
:
468 ff., developing a hint of Ew.). 'ID^ni] juu- nnn, ffi^ 'Pej;/ia, "Perjpdy etc.
334 GENEALOGY OF NAHOR (j)
— nja] rightly read by (5rS in 2 Sa. 8^ (MT no? |I

nn?j?, i Ch. a city
i8^),
of 'Aram-Zobah, probably identical with the Tubilî of TA No. 127,
and Pap. Anast., near Kadesh on the Orontes (but see Miiller, AE^
173, 396). —
ana (Taa/i, Faa/i, etc.)] unknown. —
tynn (Toxoj, 6aas, etc.)]
probably Eg-. Tehisi, on the Orontes, N of Kadesh {AE, 258 Wi. ;
—
MVAG, i. 207). HDyp (Maaxa, Mwâ, etc.)] Dt. 3^*, Jos. 12** 131^- i'
2 Sa. lo^'^, I Ch. 19^^-; an Aramaean tribe and state occupying the
modern 6olan, S of Hermon, and E of the Upper Jordan.
To the discrepancies already noted (p. 333) between the genealogfy
and ch. 24, Meyer {INS, 239 ff.) adds the important observation that
the territorial distribution of the sons of Nah6r fits in badly with the
theory of J, which connects Nah6r and Laban with the Harran.
city of
He points out that the full-blooded Nahorites, so far as identified, are
tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, while those described as hybrids
belong to the settled regions of Syria, where nomadic immigrants
would naturally amalgamate with the native population. Now the
Syro-Arabian desert is in other parts of the OT the home of the Bn^
Kedem and according to E (see on 29^) it was among the Bni Kedem
;
that Jacob found his uncle Laban. Meyer holds that this was the
original tradition, and finds a confirmation of it in the geographical
background of the list before us. In other words, the Israelites were
historically related, not to the civilised Aramaeans about Harran, but
to nomadic Aramaean tribes who had not crossed the Euphrates, but
still roamed the deserts where Aramaeans first appear in history (see
p. 206). J's representation is partly due to a misunderstanding of the

name 'Aramaean,* which led him to transfer the kinsfolk of Abraham to
the region round Harran, which was known as the chief seat of
Aramaean culture. The genealogy is therefore an authentic document
of great antiquity, which has fortunately been preserved by a Yahwistic
editor in spite of its inconsistency with the main narrative. It may be
added that the Palestinian view-point will explain the subordinate
position assigned to the name Aram, It can hardly be denied that
Meyer's reasoning is sufficiently cogent to outweigh the traces of the
names Nahor and Milkah in the neighbourhood of Harran (pp. 232,
237 f.). Meyer's explanation of Nah6r as a modification of Ndhdr (the
Euphrates) is, however, not likely to commend itself.
Ch. XXIII. Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah (P).
On the death of Sarah at the age of 127 years (^- 2),

Abraham becomes, through formal purchase from the
Hittites, the owner of the field and cave of Machpelah (^~^^),
—
and there buries his dead (i^- ô). This is the second occasion
(cf. ch. 17) on which the Priestly epitome of Abraham's life
expands into circumstantial and even graphic narration.

The transaction must therefore have had a special interest
— '
XXIII. I, 2 335
for the writer of the Code ; though it is not easy to determine

of what nature that interest was (see the closing note).
Source. —That the chapter belongs to P is proved {a) by allusions in

later parts of the Code (25^*- 492^^- 50^^) ; (6) by the juristic formalism
and redundancy of the style (c) by the names nn '33, n'?£3DD, yanx nnp,
;
|y:D pN and the expressions DB'in, *

; ninx,^- ^' 20; n'cj, 6
; nip,"- 20 T\ipOy ^^ (see ; ;
the notes and cf. Di. Ho. Gu.). Against this we have to set the '33N of
;
V.*, which is never elsewhere used by P. —

At the same time it is difficult to
acquiesce in the opinion that we have to do with a free composition of * '
the writers of P, The passage has far more the appearance of a trans-
cript from real life than any other section in the whole of P and its ;
markedly secular tone (the name of God is never once mentioned) is in

strong contrast to the free introduction of the divine activity in human
affairs which is characteristic of that document. It seems probable
that the narrative is based on some local tradition by which the form of
representation has been partly determined. A similar view is taken by
Eerdmans {Komp. d. Gen. 88), who, however, assigns the chapter to the
oldest stratum of Gen., dating at latest from 700 B.C. Steuernagel {SKy
1908, 628) agrees that ch. 23 is not in P's manner ; but thinks it a
midrashic expansion of a brief notice in that document.*
I, 2. The death of Sarah.— 2. Kiryath- Arhd\ an old

name of Hebron, v.i. — ^^2*!!] not 'came,' but went in —to
where the body lay. to wail . . . weep] with the customary
loud demonstrations of grief (Schwally, Leben n. d. Tode,
20; DBy iii. 453 ff.).
I. After v.Ti it is advisable to insert 'ip (Ba. Kit. : cf. ^f- ^). The
omission may have caused the addition of the gloss nnjj' \'.n U'f at the
end (wanting in (&).—2. ymN nnp {(& iv irbXei ' Kp^bK)] The old name of
* Sayce's contention {EHH, 57 fF.), that the incident belongs essenti- *
ally to the early Babylonian and not to the Assyrian period,' is not borne
out by the cuneiform documents to which he refers the correspondences ;
adduced being quite as close with contracts of the later Ass. kings as
with those of the age of IJammurabi. Thus, the expression full silver *
(v.^) is frequent under Sargon and subsequently {KIB, iv. 108 fF.) under ;
the first Babylonian dynasty the phrase is silver to the full price {ih.
*
'
7fF.). The formula for 'before' (a witness) is, in the earlier tablets,
—
mahar in the later, p&n^ neither the precise equivalent of those here
;
used ('.4|¥5 and '^s'j;^). There remains only the expression weigh silver,' *
which does appear to be characteristic of the older contracts but since ;
this phrase survived in Heb. till the latest times (Zee. ii^^^ Est. 3^), it is
plain that nothing can be inferred from it. Sayce has not strengthened
his case by the arguments in ETy 1907, 418 ff. see Dri. 230, and ;
Addenda}, xxxvn f.
—
^^6 THE CAVE OF MACHPELAH (p)
3-7. The request for a burying-place. —The negotia-

tions fall into three well-defined stages ; and while they
illustrate the leisurely courtesy of the East in such matters,
they cover a real reluctance of the Hittites to give Abraham
a legal title to land by purchase (Gu.). To his first request
they respond with alacrity : the best of their sepulchres is at
his disposal. — 3. arose] from the sitting posture of the mourner
(2 Sa. 12^^- 2^). ^ke sons of HetK\ see on 10^^.
P is the only document

which Hittites are definitely located in the
in
S of Canaan (cf. 26^ and the
historic accuracy of the statement is
36^) ;
widely questioned. It is conceivable that the Cappadocian Hittites
(p. 215) had extended their empire over the whole country prior to the Heb.
invasion. But taking" into account that P appears to use Heth inter- * '
changeably with Canaan (cf. 26^^ 27^ 36^^ w. 28^- ^ 36^3,)^

' ' ây be \\^
more reasonable to hold that with him Hittite is a general desIg"nation *

'
of the pre-Israelite inhabitants, as Canaanite with J and Amorite

'
' *
'
with E (cf. Jos. I*, Ezk. 16^). It may, of course, be urged that such an
idea could not have arisen unless the Hittites had once been in actual
occupation of the land, and that this assumption would best explain the
all but constant occurrence of the name in the lists of conquered peoples
(see p. 284). At present, however, we have no proof that this was the
case and a historic connexion between the northern Hittites and the
;
natives of Hebron remains problematical. Another solution is pro-

pounded by Jastrow {EB, 2094 fif.), viz., that P's Hittites are an entirely
distinct stock, having nothing but the name in common with either the
' conventional Hittites of the enumerations or the great empire of N
'
Syria. See Dri. 228 ff.
4. a sojourner and dweller] so Lv. 25^^- *'^,

Nu. 35^^, and
(in a religious sense) Ps. 39^^ (cf. i Pe. 2^^), The technical
(unless Neh. n^s be an artificial archaism [Mey. Efitst. 106]). The name
means 'Four cities' (see on yâ* 1x5, p. 326). The personification of
VT\}< as heros epotiytnus (Jos. 14^^ 15^^ 21^') has no better authority (as ffir
shows) than the mistake of a copyist (see Moore, Jud. 25). Jewish
Midrash gave several explanations of the numeral amongst others :
from the 4 patriarchs buried there Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Adam. —
{Ber. R. P. R. Eliezer, 20, 36; Ra.) the last being inferred from Dnxn
; —
Vnjrr in Jos. 14^5 (Jer. OS, 84^2). The addition of ^^x poy "^N (ffi ^ kcTil iv
T(^ /cotXw/Ciart) seems a corruption of poy '3X (Ba.) or (with <&) qn in Jos. 'i'
15^2 21^^. —
nsD*?] In Heb. usage, as in that of all the cognate languages,
n£3D means *to wail'; see Mic. i^.

—
4. 3îp] lEz. px3 yjvn "un n^n. Ac-
cording to Bertholet {Stell. z. d. Fr. 156-166), the 'n is simply a^<?r(see
on 12^'*) who resides fixedly in one place, without civil rights, and per-
haps incapable of holding land see EB, 4818. 5. i^ noN^ (so v.^'*) is an
;
—
abnormal combination, doubtfully supported by Lv. 11^. The last word
— — — — — ;
XXIII. 3-15 337

distinction between "13 and 3C'in is obscure {v.i.). — 6. O if
thou wouldst hear us (rd. I^Vp^ ^^ v.i.)\ The formula always
introduces a suggestion preferable to that just advanced : cf.
11. 13. 16^ — more than a mighty prince (as Ps.
D'^nl^N t<-^3 is * '
36^ 68^^ 104^^ etc.) it means one deriving his patent of

;
nobility straight from Almighty God. Not a man of us will

withhold^ ^/c. ] therefore there is no need to buy. Behind their
generosity there lurks an aversion to the idea of purchase.
7. The V. has almost the force of a refrain (cf. 12). The first
stage of the negotiations is concluded.

8-12. The appeal to 'Ephrdn. — In
his second speech
Abraham shows his tact first by ignoring tacitly the sugges-
tion of a free gift, and then by bringing the favourable
public opinion just expressed to bear on the individual he
wishes to reach. —
9. On the cave of Makpelah^ see at the
close. end of his field] Abraham apparently does not

in the
contemplate the purchase of the whole field that was thrust :
on him by 'Ephron's offer. for full money] see p. 335 above

(footnote). The same expression occurs in i Ch. 21^2^*.
10. entering the gate, etc.] i.e., his fellow-citizens, with the
right of sitting in public assembly at the gate (cf. 'V V ^fc<V\
34^*).
13-16. The purchase of the field. — With the same

tactful persistency, Abraham seizes on 'Ephron's expression
of goodwill, while waving aside the idea of a gift. 13. If only
thou —pray hear me/] The anakolouthon expresses the polite
embarrassment of the speaker. 14, 15. 'Ephron's resistance —
being now broken down, he names his price with the affecta-
must be joined to v.*", and read either ^h (as v.^^ : so xxx<&)y or iS (as ^^).
The last is the only form suitable in all four cases (^- î* ^^ ^''). On \h
with impve., cf. G-K. § no ^.—6. n^?'] = K5>?:, G-K. § 75 gg.

8. DSB'ijrnK] 'in accordance with your [inner] mind.' Cf. 2 Ki. 9^*^,
I Sa. 20*: see BDB, —
661 a. 9. nj's^sn] Elsewhere only 25^ /{(f^ 50^3;
always with art., showing that
it retained an appellative sense. (r6 ^
cirijkaiov rb SittXoOj'), TS S6W^^ are probably right in deriving it from sj ^s^,
' —
•double (see p. 339). 10. "^^V] )=' namely (see on 9^" cf. BDB, 514 b) ' :
in " it is replaced by 3= 'among.' ii. For «"? pt. »h —

see on ^ i"? 'nnj] :
—
(& om. —
<Ti?n4 is perf. of instant action I give it' G-K. § io6nt.
:
'
;
13. For ^'?, l&MPi (? &) read 'h, mistaking the idiom. 14. \h ibN^] as — : <*.
—15. fflr (Oi^xi, KiJpie, a.KT)Koa yap) does not render pN, but the yap is odd.
22
——
338 THE CAVE OF MACHPELAH (p)
tion of generosity still observed in the East."^ land [worth]

/foo shekels . . . whal is that . . .
?J
The word for '
land '
is
better omitted with ^ ; it is not the land but the money that
'Ephron pretends to disparage. 16. Abraham immediately —
pays the sum asked, and clenches the bargain. current with
the merchant^ The precious metals circulated in ingots,
whose weight was approximately known, without, however,
superseding the necessity for weighing in important trans- ' '
actions (Benzinger, ^/rA.^ 197; Kennedy, DB^'vX. 420; ZAy

iii. 391 f.).t
17-20. Summary and conclusion. 17, 18 are in the —

form of a legal contract. Specifications of the dimensions
and boundaries of a piece of land, and of the buildings,
trees, etc., upon it, are common in ancient contracts of sale
at all periods ; cf. e.g. KIBy iv. 7, 17, 33 (ist Bab. dynasty),
loi, and 161 (8th cent. B.C.), 223-5 (^^^ cent.); i:h^ Assouan
Papyri {^Wv cent.); and especially the Petra Inscr. cited in
Authority and Archceology^ p. 135.
The Cave of Makpelah is on the E side of the
traditional site of the
narrow valley in which Hebron
lies, and just within the modern city
{el-HallT). The place is marked by a sacred enclosure (the Hardm),

within which Christians have seldom been admitted. The SE half is
occupied by a mosque, and six cenotaphs are shown those of Abraham :
and Sarah in the middle, of Isaac and Rebekah in the SE (within the
mosque), and of Jacob and Leah in the that of Joseph is just NW :
— ^-n«i] better PiKi (ffi^). — 16. nno"? nny] The only other instance of this use of
iny (2 Ki, 12') is corrupt (rd. 7]tj;, (&). —
17. D?p] = * pass into permanent
possession,' as Lv. 25^ 27^^- ^^- ^^ (P). —
n'^sjoa -û'h] (& 5s Tjv iv Tip 5nr\<^
<Tirr)\al(p nonsense but
is ; U
in quo erat spelunca duplex suggests a
reading i?*}? which (if it were better attested) would remove the
'en ia
difficulty of supposing that the name double cave was applied to '
'
the district around. —

'Js'?] ux ':s '?V as in ^^='in front of,' perhaps *to
the E of.'
* *' The peasants will often say, when a person asks the price of any
thing which they have for sale, Receive it as a present ' this answer ' :
having become a common form of speech, they know that advantage

will not be taken of it and when desired again to name the price, they
;
will do so, but generally name a sum that is exhorbitant." Lane,

Mod. Eg.^ ii. i3f.
t Cuneiform records recently discovered in Cappadocia seem to
prove that shekels " stamped with a seal" were in use in the time of
yammurabi. See Sayce, Conteynp. Rev., Aug, 1907, p. 259.
XXIII. I6-XXIV. 339
outside the Haram on the NW. The cave below has never been
examined in modern times, but is stated by its guardians to be double.
There is no reason to doubt that the tradition as to the site has
descended from biblical times and it is quite probable that the name
;
Makpelah is derived from the feature just referred to. That the name
included the field attached to the cave (v.^^ 49^° 50^^) is natural and ;
even its extension to the adjacent district (see on ") is perhaps not a
decisive objection. —
For further particulars, see Robinson, BR^ ii.
75 ff. Baedeker, P. and S? 141 f. PEFS, 1882, 197-214; Warren, DB,
; ;
iii. 197 ff. ; Driver, Gen. 228.

Whatever assumption we make as to the origin of this narrative,
P's peculiar interest in the transaction a fact that has to be explained.
is
The motive usually assigned was a pledge of the

is that the purchase
possession of the land by Abraham's descendants that view is, indeed, ;
supported by nothing in the passage (see Gu. 241), but it is difficult to

imagine any other explanation. It is just conceivable that the elabora-
tion of the narrative was due to a dispute as to the possession of the
sacred place between Jews and Edomites in the age of P. It has been
held probable on independent grounds that the Edomites had advanced
as far north as Hebron during the Exile (see Mey. Entst. 106, 114), and
from Neh. ii^^ we learn that a colony of Jews settled there after the
return. We can at least imagine that a contest for the ownership of the
holy place (like those which have so largely determined the later history
of Palestine) would arise and that such a situation would account for
;
the emphasis with which the Priestly jurists asserted the legal claim of
the Jewish community to the traditional burying-place of its ancestors.
So Gu.^ 251 Students OT^ 99 otherwise Gu.^ 241 f.
; :
Ch. XXIW ,—Procuring a Wife for Isaac (] , [E?]).
Abraham on
his death-bed (see below) solemnly charges
his house-steward with the duty of procuring a wife for
Isaac amongst his Mesopotamian relatives i^-^). The
servant is providentially guided to the house of Nahor, in
whose daughter (see on v.^^) Rebekah he is led to recognise
appointed (io-49j^
the divinely bride for Isaac Having
obtained the consent of the relatives, and of the maiden her-
self (^^~^^), he brings her to Canaan, where Isaac marries
her (62-67).
The chapter is one of the most perfect specimens of descriptive

writing that the Book of Gen. contains. It is marked by idyllic grace
and simplicity, picturesque elaboration of scenes and incidents, and a
certain epic amplitude of treatment, seen in the repetition of the story
*
'
in theform of a speech (see Dri. 230). These artistic elements so

predominate that the primary ethnographic motive is completely sub-
merged. It may be conjectured that the basis of the narrative was a
340 THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (je)
reinforcement of the Aramaean element in the Hebrew stock, as in the

kindred story of Jacob and his wives (see Steuernag-el, Einw. 39 f.).
But if such a historical kernel existed, it is quite lost sight of in the
graphic delineation of human character, and of ancient Eastern life,
which is to us the main interest of the passage. must also note the We
profoundly religious conception of Yahwe's providence as an unseen
power, overruling events in answer to prayer. All these features seem
to mdicate a somewhat advanced phase in the development of the
patriarchal tradition. The chapter belongs to the literary type most
fully represented in the Joseph-narrative (cf. Gu. 220).
Source and Unity of the Narrative. From the general character of —
the style, and the consistent use of the name ni,T, critical opinion has
been practically unanimous in assigning the whole chapter to J. It is
admitted, however, that certain unevennesses of representation occur ;
' '
and the question arises whether these are to be explained by accidental

dislocations of the text, or by the interweaving of two parallel recen-
sions. Thus, the servant's objection that the maiden may not be willing
to follow him ('• ^^), is met by Abraham in two ways on the one hand :
by the confident assurance that this will not happen C^- ^**), and on the
other by absolving him from his oath if his mission should miscarry
(»• «). In 29f- Laban twice goes out to the man at the well {^^ ^^) ^8 II
;
speaks of the mothers house, ^sb of t^g father's in ^ the servant :
negotiates with Laban and Bethuel, in *^' with the brother and mother ^'^
of the bride in ^^ the request is at once agreed to by the relatives with-

;
out regard to Rebekah's wish, whereas in "^ the decision is left to

herself; in ^îs sent away with her nurse, in ^** she takes her
Rebekah
own maidens with her her departure is twice recorded (^^* ^'^). These
;
II
doublets and variants are too numerous to be readily accounted for

either by transpositions of the text (Di. al.) or by divergences in the
oral tradition {SOT, 96) and although no complete analysis is here
;
attempted, the presence of two narratives must be recognised. That

one of these is J is quite certain but it is to be observed that the ;
characteristically Yahwistic expressions are somewhat sparsely distri-

buted, and leave an ample margin of neutral ground for critical
ingenuity to sift out the variants between two recensions.* The
problem has been attacked with great acuteness and skill by Gu.
(215-221) and Procksch (14 f.), though with very discordant results. I
agree with Procksch that the second component is in all probability

E, mainly on the ground that a fusion of J** and J^ (Gu.) is without
parallel, whereas J^ and E are combined in ch. 21. The stylistic
criteria are, indeed, too indecisive to permit of a definite conclusion ;
but the parallels instanced above can easily be arranged in two series,
one of which is free from positive marks of J while, in the other, ;
« -,^,^, 1. 3. 7. 12. 21. 26. 27. 31. 35. 40. 42. 44. 48. 60. 51. 82. 56 .
Q,^.^3 q^jj^ 10 (against
P's mN jns) ; 'mSiDi 'snx, * (12^) ; D'D*3 «3, ^ (see on 18") ; n«nD nna, ^^ (26', cf.
45
12^^); yr, 16 (see on 4^); B" with suff. and ptcp. *^- *» ; mo, ^6.
. p'Ssn,
21. 40. 42. 56 (3^2. 3. 23) .
j^^^n^ 13 (gySO) ; nKip*? pi, " (sCC iS^) ; K3, ^ 12. 14. 17. 23. 41
—
XXIV. I, 2 341
everything" is consistent with the supposition that Abraham's residence

is Beersheba (see p. 241 above).
—
The Death of Abraham. It is impossible to escape the impression
that in vv.^"^ Abraham is very near his end, and that in ^^'^^ his death is
presupposed. It follows that the account of the event in JE must have
occurred in this chap., and been suppressed by the Red. in favour of
that of P (25^''^), according to which Abraham survived the marriage of
Isaac by some 35 years (cf. 25^*'). The only question is whether it
happened before or after the departure of the servant. Except in ^^''a,
the servant invariably speaks as if his master were still alive (cf. ^-- ''**'/3'
27. 37. 42. 44b. 48. 61. 54. 56)^ j^ 65^ on the Other hand, he seems to be aware,
before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is no more. There is here a slight
diversity of representation, which may be due to the composition of
sources. Gu. supposes that in the document to which '^''«" ^^"^ and ^
belong (J**), the death was recorded after ^ (and related by the servant
after ''^) while in the other (J^) it was first noticed in connexion with
;
the servant's meeting with Isaac (before ^). Procksch thinks E's notice
followed v.^, but doubts whether Abraham's death was presupposed by
J's account of the servant's return. —
V.^^ is thought to point hack to 25^ ;
and hence some critics (Hup. We. Di. al.) suppose that 25^'^ (i^*>)
originally preceded ch. 24 while others (KS. Ho. Gu.) find a more
;
suitable plxce for 25' (with or without "'') between 24^ and 24^ See,
further, on 25^"^ below.
1-9. The servant's commission— i. had blessed, etc,\

His life as recorded is, indeed, one of unclouded prosperity.
— 2. the oldest {i.e. senior in rank) servant, etc.] who, in
default of an heir, would have succeeded to the property
(152^-), and
still acts as the trusted guardian of the family-
interests comp. the position of Ziba in 2 Sa. 9^^- i6^^-.

;
put thy hand, etc.] Only agâin 47^^ another death-bed scene — !
It is, in fact, only the imminence of death that can account for
the action here had Abraham expected to live, a simple

:
command would have sufficed (Gu.).

The is to an oath by the genital organs, as emblems of the
reference
life-giving'power of deity, a survival of primitive religion whose —
significance had probably been forgotten in the time of the narrator.
Traces have been found in various parts of the world see Ew. Ant. 19' :
[Eng. tr.] Di. 301 ATLO^, 395 and especially the striking Australian
; ; ;
parallel cited by Spurrell (^218) from Sir G. Grey.* By Jewish writers

* "One native remains seated on the ground with his heels tucked
under him . . . ; the one who is about to narrate a death to him
approaches and seats himself cross-legged upon the thighs of the
. . .
other ; and the one who is seated uppermost places his hands
. . .
under the thighs of his friend ... an inviolable pledge to avenge the ;
death has by this ceremony passed between the two."

— :
itwas considered an appeal to the covenant of circumcision (5P Jer. ,
Qu., Ra. so Tu. Del.). lEz. explains it as a symbol of subjection,

;
(adding that it was still a custom in India) Ew. Di. Ho. al. as invoking ;
posterity (oi; 'N^», 46^6, Ex. i^, Ju. Sô) to maintain the sanctity of the
oath.
3. God of heave7i and of earth] an expression for the

divine omnipresence in keeping with the spiritual idea of
God's providence which pervades the narrative. The full
phrase is not again found (see v.^). fhou shalt not take, etc.]
The motive is a natural concern for the purity of the stock
see Bertholet, Stellung, 67. —5-8. The servant's fear is not
that hemay fail to find a bride for Isaac, but that the
woman may refuse to be separated so far from her kindred
would the oath bind him in that event to take Isaac back to
Harran ? The suggestion elicits from the dying patriarch a
last utterance of his unclouded faith in God.
—send his Angel] — 7. God of
heaven] vJ. cf. Ex. 23^^- ^3 ^32, Nu. 20^^.
The Angel is here an invisible presence, almost a personi-

fication of God's providence; contr. the older conception
in i67ff-.
10-14. The servant at the well.— On the fidelity of

the picture to Eastern life, see Thomson, LB, i. 261. — 10. ten
camels] to bring home the bride and her attendants (î).
But **such an expedition would not now be undertaken . . .
3. '33^1 so v.'.—4. '2] mx dn o.—At the end fScV add

(& +'I(radK (as v.*) ;
D^p as V.' — always with neg., exc. Is. i^^, Jb. 39^ (Sir. 6^^). 7.
5. n^x]
—
D'OBTi ^nbtt] appears only in late books (Jon. 1^, 2 Ch. 36^^ = Ezr. i^, Neh. i^'-
24.20. j,,Q^ -^^^ jg frequent in Aram, parts of Ezr. and Dn.). The words
are wanting in one Heb. MS (see Kit.), and may be deleted as a gloss.
Otherwise we must add with (& p^n 'n'?Ni (cf. ^). yntyj ntfNi] probably — "''?
interpolated by a later hand (Di.); see p. 284 above. 8. ytrtK] ®r + e/s —

TTjv yrjv TarjTTjv. — as^n n"? (but jom. a'trn)] juss. with î'? ; G-K. § 109 d,
10. Unless we admit a duality of sources, it will be necessary to
omit the first ^.^'l (with (JBr).—-^3i] better -Sspi (®rF<S).— D'lnj din] Dt. 23^
Ju. 38, Ps. 6o2, I Ch. 19^ t- C° ma but QIN. The identity of the second
element with Eg. Nahartn, TA. NaJirima (79^"* [rev.], 181^^, \\<f^) is be-
yond dispute but it is perhaps too readily assumed that geographically
;
the expressions correspond. The Eg. Naharin extended from E of the

Euphrates to the valley of the Orontes {AE, 249 ff.); all that can be
certainly affirmed about the biblical term is that it embraced both sides
of the Euphrates (Harran on the E Pethor on the [Dt. 23^]). Since
; W
there is no trace of a dual in the Eg. and Can. forms, it is doubtful if
— — — —
XXIV. 3-15 343
with any other animals, nor with a less number." goodly

things] for presents to the bride and her relations (22- ^^). —
On Âram Naharainiy see the footnote. the city of Nahor
in Jwould be Harran (cf. 27*^ 28^^ 29*) but the phrase is :
probably an Elohistic variant to 'Aram Naharaim^ in which

case a much less distant locality may be referred to (see on
29^). 12-I4. The servant's prayer. The request for a sign
is illustrated by Ju. S^^^-, i Sa. 148^- : note ['i^n.^K] 'pbij r\}r\
in all three cases. A spontaneous offer to draw for the

camels would Thomson's experience be typical) be un-
(if
usual, — in any case the mark of a kind and obliging dis-

position. — 13. the daughters to draw water] cf. i Sa.
. . ,
9".
15-27. The servant and Rebekah. — 15. who was bom
to Bethuely etc.] cf. 24.47,
The somewhat awkward phrasing- has led Di. al. to surmise that
all these vv. have been g-lossed, and that here the orig-inal text ran hk'n
'1JI np^p n-1^;, Rebekah being the daughter of Milkah and Nah6r. Comp.
29^ where Laban described as the son of Nahor. The redactional
is
insertion of Bethil'el would be explained by the divergent tradition of P

(25^ 28^- ^), in which Bethu'el is simply an Aramaean,' and not connected '
with Nah6r at all (see Bu. 421 ff.). The question can hardly be decided
(Ho. 168) but there is a considerable probability that the original J
;
made Laban and Rebekah the children of Nahor. In that case, however,
it will be necessary to assume that the tradition represented by P was
known to the Yahwistic school before the final redaction, and caused a
remodelling of the genealogy of 22^"^* (see p. 333). Cf., however, Bosse,
MVAGy 1908, 2, p. 8f.
the Heb. ending be anything but a Mass. caprice (rd. onnj?), or a

locative term., to be read -dm (We. Comp? 45I Meyer, ZATW^ iii. ;
307 f.: cf. G-K. § 88 c, and There would in

Str. p. 135 f. with reff.).
this last case beno need to find a second river (Tigris, Chaboras, Balih,
Orontes, etc.) to go with Euphrates. The old identification with the
Greek Mesopotamia must apparently be abandoned. See, further, Di.
302 Moore, /w. 87, 89; KAT^, 28 f.
; —
12. ry^pn] 'make it occur,' 27^0 (J).
—14. 'liij^] Kr^. n^v^n; so vv.i^-^-^^.ev 348.12^ Dt. 22^^^ ^^^•^. myjn
is found as Ke. in Pent, only Dt. 22^^, but ax reads so throughout.
It is hazardous to postulate an archaic epicene use of lyj on such
restricted evidence: see BDB, 655a; G-K. § 17c. T\p^H\ (K + ^ws hv

traiffwvTai irlvovaai. —
nnan] decide, adjudicate, here = * allot ; so only '
v.^"*. Contr. 2oi« 2i25 îF" ^''\ {Y.\ Lv. ig^'f (P).—im] 'and thereby';
G-K. § 135 A
15. After Dnc3 rd. nVs; (cf. «) ; G-K. § 107 c.— .oiffiF ins. iaH^ after
— —
1 6. Taking no notice of the stranger, the maiden went

down to the fountain (I^V) . . . and came up] In Eastern wells
the water is frequently reached by steps : ct. Ex. 2^^ (njpnril),
Jn. 4^^. — 19, 20. The writer lingers over the scene, with
evident delight in the alert and gracious actions of the
damsel. —21. The servant meanwhile has stood gazing at
her in silence^ watching the ample fulfilment of the sign.
22. The nose-ring 3.n6. bracelets are not the bridal gift (Gu.),
but a reward for the service rendered, intended to excite
interest in the stranger, and secure the goodwill of the
maiden. See Lane, Mod. Eg.^ ii. 320, 323 ; cf. R^^ 453^-
23-25. In the twofold question and answer, there is perhaps
a trace of the composition of narratives v.i. 24. See on ^*. ;
—
Read the dajighter of Milkah whom she bore to Nahor (as 34^).
— 26, 27. The servant's act of worship marks the close of
the scene.
28-32. Laban's hospitality is inspired by the selfish
greed for which that worthy was noted in tradition. 28. —
her mothcT^s house cannot mean merely the female side of the
family (Di.), for Laban belongs to it, and ^^-^^ imply that the
father (whether Bethuel or Nahor) is not the head of the
house. Some find in the notice a relic of matriarchy (Ho.
Gu.) ; but the only necessary inference is that the father was
dead. — 31. seeing I have cleared the house] turning part of
ngn^ (^). — 18 end] ffir + ^'ws iwada-aro irivup, omitting- the first two words
of v.^^ —20. stone troug-h for watering- animals, found at every
nptyn] the
well (30^^ cf. 3o*S Ex. 2^^). —
21. nxncc] not 'wondering' (^ nnv ; so De.),
but 'gazing-' (by-form of jj riyiff) as Is. 41^''. Constr. before prep.:
G-K. § 130 a. —22. iVpt^D] juuL + nsN Sy nr'i, a necessary addition (cf. ^').
DU accordingly is here a 'nose-jewel' (Is. 3^^ Pr. ii^^), in 35*, Ex. 32^'
(E) an earring. — yp3] = ^ shekel (Ex. 3828).— 23-25. fhe theory of two re-
censions derives some little support from the repeated vhtt noNni of ^ ^.
A mere rearrangement such as Ba. proposes ^^^ ^ ^^' ^) only cures one
anomaly by creating another and is, besides, impossible if the amend-
;
ment given above for v.^ be accepted. 25. p*?*?] mx p'?'', as v.^ but inf. — ;
—
elsewhere is always p*?. 27. ''DJN emphasises the following ace. suff. (G-K.
§§ 1436, iSSdye). 5 ]]] implies perhaps DX '3 (Ba.) or '? (Kit.); if not
a mistake for p j. 'hn] Point 'nx (sing.) with Vns.

28. n^x] S) Oldo"! (wrongly).—30. iniNnD (juu.) is better than MT riKna.
—noy nam] see G-K. § n6s; Dav. § 100(a). 31. 'Ji'i?] 'cleared away,' —
— —— —
XXIV. i6-48 345
it into a stable. —32. he (Laban) brought the man in {v.i.^
. . . and ungirt the camels] without removing the pack-
saddles.* to wash hz's/eety etc.] cf. 18*.
33-49. The servant's narrative. —A recapitulation of

the story up to this point, with intentional variations of
language, and with some abridgment. (^ frequently ac-
commodates the text to what has gone before, but its
readings need not be considered. 35. Cf. 12^® 132. —36b.

has given him all that he had] This is the only material
addition to the narrative. But the notice is identical with
25^, and probably points back to it in some earlier context
(see p. 341 above). —40. before whom I have walked] Cf. 17^.
Gu.'s suggested alteration :
*
who has gone before me,' is an
unauthorised and unnecessary addition to the TikkzinS
Sopherim (see 1822).—41. n^K \bis) for ^Vlpi^, v.^. On the
connexion of oath and curse^ see We. Heid!^ 192 f. 45-47.
Greatly abbreviated from ^^"^s^ ^^^ daughter of [Bethiiel the —
son of] Nahor^ etc.] see on ^^-2*.
—48. daughter of my master^s
brother] 'Brother,' may, of course, stand for 'relative* or
*
nephew (2912- is) but if Bethuel be interpolated in i^- 24. *T^
' ;
Rebekah was actually first cousin to Isaac, and such mai-
as Lv. 14^*', Is. 40^ etc. ; cf. Ar. sj fana^ W.—effecit ut dispareret. 32. —
»<3;i] (U) avoids an awkward change of subj., and is to be preferred
(Ols. KS. Gu.). The objection (Di. al.) that this would require to be
followed by "nx is answered by the very next cl. Irregularity in the
use of 'nK is a puzzling phenomenon in the chapter, which unfortunately
fits in with no workable scheme of documentary analysis.
33. Dg'»i] Kre and

DtfVi (Hoph. v^Dib),
ixx. ob'O. But Keth. recurs ©^
in MT of 50^ again with pass, significance. The anomalous
(d??"'.!)*
form may be pass, of Qal (G-K. § 73/"), or metaplastic Niph. from dk"
or Db'i (No. Beitr. z. sent. Sprachw. 39 f.). idnm^] joiffi^S 'TP>^'1, which
is perhaps better. —
36. nnjpTJ xxx<& injp). —
38. K*? on never has the sense of
Aram, n^n {sondern), and must be taken as the common form of adjura-
tion (De.). jux {Lond. Pol.) has qk '3. 41. 'nSno] G-K. § 95 n. — The v. —
contains a slight redundancy (*« ^^), but nothing is gained by inter-
1
—
posing a cl. between *ând *'« (KS.). 46. n'Syo] (& iirl rbv Ppaxlova avTrjs
dip' eavTTJs (conflate ?) ; "B de humero (cf. ^^).
* ** The camel is very delicate, and could easily catch a chill if the
saddle were taken away imprudently and on no account can the camel ;
stay out of doors in bad weather. It is then taken into the house, part
of which is turned into a stable " (Baldensperger, PEFS^ 1904, 130).
— —
34^ THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (je)
riages were considered the most eligible by the Nahorites

(29^^). —49, that 1 may tum^ etc.] not to seek a bride else-
where (Di.), but generally * that I may know how to act.'
Departure of Rebekah, with the consent and
50-61.
blessing of her relatives. 50. The relatives, recognising —
the hand of Providence in the servant's experiences, decline
toanswer had or good', i.e., anything whatever, as 3124.29^
Nu. 24^^ etc.

The V. as a whole yields a perfectly good sense * we cannot speak, :
because Yahwe has decided and ^' is a natural sequel. It is a serious

' ;
flaw in Gu.'s analysis of ^'^^•, that he has to break up ^, connecting- nin»D

n^^n Ky; with "', and the rest of the v. with '^''' {^ we cannot speak: let
the maiden decide '). —
On the other hand, "^S'lnni \^h in ^ is barely con-
sistent with nexi n^nx in ^^' ^^. Since the mention of the father after the
brother would in any case be surprising, Di. al. suppose that here
again VNinni is an interpolation Kit. reads inn?, and Ho. substitutes
;
ns^pi. Gu. (219) considers that in this recension Bethuel is a younger

brother of Laban.
51. Here, at all events, the matter is settled in accord-

ance with custom, without consulting the bride. —53. The
presents are given partly to the bride and partly to her
relatives. In the latter we may have a survival of the "inb
(34^2^ Ex. 22^^, I Sa. iS^^t) or purchase-price of a wife; but
Gu. rightly observes that the narrative springs from a more
refined idea of marriage, from which the notion of actual
purchase has all but disappeared. So in Islam mahr and
sadak (the gift to the wife) have come to be synonymous
terms for dowry (KM^, 93, 96) cf. Benzinger, Arch.'^ 106. :
55* The reluctance to part with Rebekah is another indica-

tion of refined feeling (Gu.). On '^WV iN Dô;, v.i.—^. The
servant's eagerness to be gone arises from the hope of finding
his old master still alive. —57, 58. The question here put to
Rebekah is not whether she will go now or wait a few days,
53. n3^JD (Ezr. i^ 2 Ch. 21' 32^^)] ' costly gifts,' fr. ^ nJD, Ar. magada
— *be noble.'— 55. n'nNi]ffiÛ read n'riNil and so ^F and many Greek ;
curss. in ^^ —iiB'y ix D'D'] a few days, say ten,' is a fairly satisfying ren-
*
dering (fflc ijfi^pas (ha-el 8^Ka) a year or ten months (^^ Ra. ) is hardly ad-
;
*
'
missible. But the text seems uncertain : au nn in D'D' ^ __»_LDQ-»

; xj^j^
(cf. 29").In deference to axx& we may insert tîn before D'p; :
*
a month
or at least ten days' (Ols. Ba.). "nhn] probably 3rd fem. (so all Vns.).
—— — ;
XXIV. 49-62 347

but whether she will go at all. The reference to the wishes
of the bride may be exceptional (owing to the distance, etc.)
but a discrepancy with ^^ cannot easily be got rid of. —59.
their sister] of. *your daughter,' 34^, the relation to the
family being determined by that to the head of the house.
But it is better to read n^HK (pi.) in ^3. 55 ^j^h JJ^ and
MSS of ^. her nurse] see on 35^. —60. The blessing on
the marriage (cf. Ru. 4^^^-), rhythmic in form, is perhaps an
ancient fragment of tribal poetry associated with the name of
Rebekah. possess the gate] as 22}^. —6ia and 6lb seem to be
variants. For another solution (KS.), see on ^2. hermaidens]
parallel to '
her nurse ' in ^^.
62-67. The home-bringing of Rebekah. — 62. Now

Isaac had come What follows is hardly intelligible.
• • •
]
The most probable sense is that during the servant's absence

Isaac had removed to Beer-lahai-roi, and that near that well
the meeting took place.
The difficulty lies partly in the corrupt xiap (v.?.), partly in the
circum-
stantial form of the sent., and partly
unexplained disappearance in the
of Abraham. Keeping- these points in mind, the most conservative
exegesis is that of De. Isaac (supposed to be living with his father at
:
Beersheba) 'was coming /row a walk in the direction of B.', when he

met the camels this, however, makes n;*'! (^3) plup., which is hardly
;
right. More recent writers proceed on the assumption that the death
of Abraham had been explicitly recorded. Ho. suggests that Isaac
had removed to Lahairoi during his father's life (transposing 25^^^ before
24^^), and that now he comes /wtw that place (reads laisp) on hearing of
Abraham's death. Di. reads ^â /- -yy^^ ^^ [pns']N3'i, and finds in these
words the notice of Isaac's migration to B. KS., reading as Di., but —
making the servant implicit subj. of ».y\ puts the chief hiatus between
*^* and "'' the servant on his return learned that Abraham was dead ;
:
—59" '"lOpJl^] ffi Ttt {firdpxovra airrjs = PtJîpO, a word of —60. ^N apposi-
P. is
tional vocative, not subj. to unhN {soror nostra es, U). — "O] with abnormal
— (G-K. 63 q).—vni&] MX V3'K, as 22".
§
62. «'i3p]cannot be inf. const, with |P the French il vint darriver ;
(Hupf. 29) has no analogy in Heb. idiom. Nor can it readily be sup-
posed equivalent to NU/>p (i Ki. 8^* ; De. v.s.^\ for the direction in which
Isaac took his walk is an ux and ffi {pib.
utterly irrelevant circumstance,
which a fairly suitable text (n3"]p or 'ep) could
T^s ip^fiov) read nanD3, from
be obtained (cf. Di. and Ho. s.). Gu.'s Niap (as ace. of direction) has
no parallel except the very remote one of D' hnud, Ezk. 27^ (of the situa-
tion of Tyre). Other suggestions are to delete the word as an uncor-
rected lapse of the pen to read nx^p with omission of the following "JN^
;
— — ——
34^ THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (je)
then (^'*') took Rebekah and went further and {^^^) came to Lahairoi. ;
Gu. (operating with two sources) considers ®^ the immediate sequel to

®^* in the document where Abraham s death preceded the servant's
departure, so that nothing remained to be chronicled but Isaac's removal

to Lahairoi (reads KUD, to the entrance of). This solution is attractive,
*
and could perhaps be carried through independently of his division of

sources. For even if the death followed the departure, it might very
well have been recorded in the early part of the ch. (after ^").
63. nib^'j'] a word of uncertain meaning, possibly to roam

(z;./.).toward the approach of evening] (Dt. 23^^)^ when the
Oriental walks abroad (cf. 3^). camels were coming] In the
distance he cannot discern them as his own. 64. At the sight —
of a stranger Rebekah dismounts (i'EJ as 2 Ki. 5^1), a mark
of respect still observed in the East {LB, i. 762 ; Seetzen,
Reisen, iii. 190) ; cf. Jos. 15^^, i Sa. 25^^. —65. It is m.y master]
Apparently the servant is aware, before meeting Isaac, that
Abraham is dead. —The putting on of the veil (cf. nubere
viro), the survival of a primitive marriage taboo, is part of
the wedding ceremony (see Lane, ME^, i. 217 f.). —67. brought
her into the tent] The next phrase (il3S nnb*) violates a funda-
mental rule of syntax, and must be deleted as a gloss. Isaac's
own tent is referred to. This is the essential feature of the
marriage ceremony in the East (see Benz. ArchJ^ 108 f.).
comforted himself after [the death of] his mother] It is con-

jectured (We. al.) that the real reading was 'his father,'
whose death had recently taken place. The change would
(Lag. Procksch) ; to substitute [yaiyiJNaD (* from Beersheba to ' : Ba.).

'NT 'n"? nN3] ffir (here and omitting 'n^ refer to
25^^) to <ppiap rijs opdaeus, ;
p. —
289 above. 63. n?b^] a-rr. Xey. commonly identified with n''^ = muse,' *
* complain,' talk,' etc.

'
so (& (d5oXeo-x^<rai), Aq.; (o/itXô-at), S. (XaXô-at),
V {ad meditandum : so Tu. De.), E^J

Ra.); Di. KS. al. think (hn^s"? :
the sense of *
most probable but? lEz. (*to
mourning' (for his father) ;
walk among the shrubs') and Bottcher ('to gather brushwood') derive
from n'if (21^'). 5 noVmVnX is thought to rest on a reading aw?
(adopted by Ges. al.), but is rather a conjecture. No. {Beitr. z. sent, Spr.
43 f.) suggests a connexion with Ar. 5«/fa = stroll (point vfixh), *
'
—
D''?DJn of jju. is wrong (t;.^.).—65. ni^n] zf^\\ ux iSn.— t]'ysn] 38'''- ^^t (J).
On the art. cf. G-K. § 126^. After Lagarde's brilliant note {Sem. 23 ff.),
it can scarcely be doubted that the word denotes a large double square
—
wrapper or shawl, of any material. 67. nN3'i] ffi eiarfKdev 8L rrwa n^nnri] —
art. with const, is violently ungrammatical G-K. § 127^^ For ISN^ ; —
read V59 niD (Kit.) v.s.
—
;
XXIV. 63-XXV. 349

naturally suggest itself after J's account of the death of
Abraham had been suppressed in accordance with P's chron-
ology. The death of Sarah is likewise unrecorded by J or E.
XXV. 1-6.— The Sons of Keturah (J ? R?).
The Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites acknow-

ledged a looser kinship than with the Ishmaelites or Edom-
ites are here represented as the offspring of Abraham by a
second marriage (cf. i Ch. i^^f.j^
The names Midian, Sheba, Dedan (see below) show that these
Keturean peoples must be soug-ht in N Arabia, and in the tract of
country partly assigned to the Ishmaelites in v.^^ The fact that in
Ju. 8^^ Midianites are classed as Ishmaelites (cf. Gn. 37-'^*) points to
some confusion between the two groups, which in the absence of a
Yahwistic genealogy of Ishmael it is impossible altogether to clear up.
We. {Comp.^ 29') has dropped a hint that Keturah may be but a tradi-
tional variant of Hagar * Ho. conjectures that the names in ^'* are
;
taken from J's lost Ishmaelite genealogy and Kent {SOT, i. loi) thinks
;
it not improbable that Keturah was originally the wife of Ishmael.

Glaser (ii. 450) considers the Ketureans remains of the ancient Minaean
people, and not essentially different from the Ishmaelites and Edomites.
See, further, on v.^^ below.
Source. — {a) The genealogy (}'^) contains slight traces of J in "i^;, ^
\J5 nVx-"?!! * (cf. lo^** 9^9) P is excluded by ^'?^ and the discrepancy with
;
10'' as to Sheba and Dedan while E appears not to have contained any
;
genealogies at all. The vv. must therefore be assigned to some Yah-

wistic source, in spite of the different origin given for Sheba in lo"^.
(i) The
section as a whole cannot, however, belong to the primary
Yahwistic document ; because there the death of Abraham had already
been recorded in ch. 24, and 24^ 25^! We must conclude
refers back to
that 25^"^ is the work of a compiler, who has
incorporated the genealogy,
and taken v.^ from its original position (see on 24^) to bring it into con-
nexion with Abraham's death. These changes may have been made in
a revised edition of J (so Gu.); but in this case we must suppose that
the account of Abraham's death was also transferred from ch. 24, to
be afterwards replaced by the notice of P. It seems to me easier
(in view of ^^*' and ^^) to hold that the adjustments were effected during
the final redaction of the Pent., in accordance with the chronological
scheme of P.
*
So Jewish interpreters ST J, Ber. R., Jer. Qu.j Ra. (but not lEz.).
:
The mere transposition of 25^"^ before ch. 24 (Hupf We. al.) does
t
not fully meet the difficulty, there being, in fact, no suitable place for a
second marriage of Abraham anywhere in the original J (Ho.).
— —
350 THE SONS OF KETURAH (j, r)
I. Keturah^ called a *
concubine ' in i Ch. i^^ (^f. v.®
below), is here a wife^ the death of Sarah being presupposed.
The name occurs nowhere else, and is probably fictitious,
though Arabian genealogists speak of a tribe Katura in the

vicinity of Mecca (Kn.-Di.). There is no 'absurdity' (De.)
in the suggestion that it may contain an allusion to the
traffic in incense (iTniDp) which passed through these regions
(see Mey. INS^ S'S)* —

2-4. The Keturean stock is divided
into 6 (^ 7) main branches, of which only one, Midian,
attained historic importance. The minor groups number 10
(ffi 12), including the well-known names Sheba and Dedan.
2. pD] (Ze^pdv, ZofJL^pdv, has been connected with the ZajSpA/i

etc.)
[Zadpafi?] of Ptol. vi. 7. 5, W of Mecca (Kn.)
and with the Zantareni ;
of Pliny, HN^ vi. 158, in the interior but these are probably too far S.
;
The name is probably derived from 121= 'wild goat,' the ending- an
(which is common in the Keturean and Horite lists and rare elsewhere)
being- apparently gentilic cf. '"!PI, Nu. 25^^ i Ch. 2^ 8^ 9^^.
: A connexion
with np] {Si vr^1)> Jer. 25^ is very doubtful. On jî7: ('le^di', 'lefcrdc,
etc.) see on v.^ — J'JP (Ma5ai/i)]Wetzstein instances a Wadi
unknown.
Medan near the ruins of Daidan. —
The name appears
j;"ip (MaStct/i)]
as Mo5f aj/a = Ma5io/x,a in Ptol. vi. 7. 2, 27 (cf. Jos. Ant. ii. 257 Eus. OS, ;
p. 276), the Madyan of Ar. geogr., a town on the E side of the Gulf of
Akaba, opposite the S end of the Sinaitic peninsula (see No. EBy 3081).
The chief seat of this great tribe or nation must therefore have been in
the northern Hig-az, whence roving bands ravaged the territory of Moab,
Edom (Gn. 36^^), and Israel (Ju. 6-8). The mention of Midianites in the
neighbourhood of Horeb may be due to a confusion between J and E
(see Mey. INS, 3f.) and after the time of the Judges they practically
;
disappear from history. ** As to their occupations, we sometimes find

them described as peaceful shepherds, sometimes as merchants [Gn.
3728- 36^ Is. 60^], sometimes as roving warriors, delighting to raid the
—
more settled districts" (No.). p^-y*! and nÊ* have been identified by Frd.
Delitzsch {ZKF, ii. 91 f., Par. 297 f.) and Glaser (ii. 445 f.) with Yasbuk
and S{i}}u of Ass. monuments {KIB, \. 159, 33, 99, 101), both regions of
northern Syria. Del. has since abandoned the latter identification {Hiob,
139) for phonetic reasons. —
3. n^?* and ]y\\ see on 10''. As they are there
bracketed under nsyn, so here under f^'iT, a name otherwise unknown.
The equation with jnp; (lo^^*''*), proposed by Tu. and accepted by Mey.
(318), is phonologically difficult. Since the Sabaeans are here still in the
N, it would seem that this genealogy goes farther back than that of the
Yoktanite Arabs in ch. 10. Between Sheba and Dedan, (& ins. Qaifiav
( = Np'n, v.^5). —
3b. The sons of Dedan are wanting in i Ch., and are prob-
ably interpolated here (note the pi.). (& has in addition Pa7ov7j\ (cf.
36^") Kal Na/35eT7\ (cf. v.^^). di^b'n] certainly not the Assyrians (i^s^n), but
some obscure N Arabian tribe, possibly the ntrxN mentioned on two

— — — — — 1;
XXV. 1-7 35
Miiiaean inscrs. along with nsD (Egypt), prii lay, and Gaza (Homm.
AHT, 248 f., 252 297 ff.
f., AA,
Glaser, ii. 455 ff. Winckler, AOF, i.
; ;
28 f. ; Konig, FiinfLaiidschaftcn, 9 cf., on the other side, Mey. ZAy xi. :
327 ff. , —
INS^ 320 ff. ). D?f'ia^] The personal name itftiS (as also niB'N) has been
found in Nabat. inscrs. ; see Levy, ZDMG, xiv. 403 f., 447, 477 f., where
attention is called to the prevalence of craftsmen's names in these inscrs.,

and a connexion of with
suggested. 4. Five sons of
'*? iyt?S in 4^^ is —
Midian. — n^'y is named along with Midian
in Is. 60® as a trading tribe.
It has been identified with the Jâyapa ( = nD;y ?) mentioned by Tiglath-
pileser IV. and Sargon, alon^ with some 6 other rebellious Arab tribes
\kIB, ii. 21, 43) see Del. Par. 304, KAT^, 58.—With nsy, Wetzst. com-
:
pares the modern 'O/r (Di.); Glaser (449), Ass. Apparu {KIB, ii. 223).
— •qjiq] Perhaps Handkiya near 'Ofr (Kn.-Di.). It is noteworthy that —
these three names— nsj'y, i Ch. 2'*«'- n£3j;, i Ch. 4" -|3n, Gn. 46^ Ex. ; ^ ;
—
6'^ Nu. 26", I Ch. 5^ are found in the Heb. tribes most exposed to
contact with Midian (Judah, Manasseh, Reuben). Does this show an
incorporation of Midianite clans in Israel? (No.). Vy^'^. iÂhi-yadda)
and nj;^^^ {'Il-yedd and Yeda-il) are personal names in Sabaean, the
former being borne by several kings {ZDMG, xxvii. 648, xxxvii. 399
Glas. ii. 449).
5. 24^^. 6. The exodus of the Bne Kedem (com-

See on —
posed by a redactor). the concubines] apparently Hagar and
Keturah, though neither bears that opprobrious epithet in
Gen. in 16^ Hagar is even called n^N.
: Moreover, Ishmael
and his mother, according to J and E, had long been
separated from Abraham. sent them away from off Isaac]
so as not to be a burden upon him. Cf. Ju. 1 1^. eastward
to the land of Kedem] the Syro-Arabian desert.
So we must render, unless (with Gu.) we are to take the two phrases
nipnp and nij^ p^!"^« as variants. But D-ii? in OT is often a definite geo-
graphical expression, denoting the region E and SE of the Dead Sea
(cf. 29^ Nu. 23', Ju. 63- 33 712 810^ Is. 11", Jer. 4928, Ezk. 25*- 1", Jb. i^)
and although its appellative significance could, of course, not be for-

gotten, it has almost the force of a proper name. It is so used in the
Eg. romance of Sinuhe (c. 1900 B.C.): see Miiller, AE, 46 f. ; Wi. GI,
52 ff. ; Mey. INS, 243 f.
XXV. y-ii.— The Death and Burial of Abraham (P).

7-iia
a^j.g tjjg continuation of 23-" in P. Note the characteristic
"^
phrases : \'n u^ 'D;, ;
yia, n;iit3 n;i'ii'3, ve3;;-'?n ^dnj, » ; D'nS^, ^^^
; the chron-
ologfy the reminiscences of ch. 23, and the
', backward reference in 49^1.
— ^^^ belongs to J.
5 end] /juC&S + '"i33. — 6. b^j^'? (see on 22^^) is used of a nns?' in 35^2.

DmaN*? He's] ffi a-vrov.
— — —
352 DEATH OF ABRAHAM (p)
8. gathered to his kindred (sqq on 17^*)] Originally, this

and similar phrases (15^^472*^, Dt. 31^^ etc.) denoted burial
in the family sepulchre ; but the popular conception of Sheol
as a vast aggregate of graves in the under world enabled the
language to be applied to men who (like Abraham) were
buried far from their ancestors. Isaac and Ishmael] The
expulsion of Ishmael is consistently ignored by P. Iia.
Transition to the history of Isaac (25^^^-).
"•^ has been torn from its context in J, where it may have
(like V.')
stood after 24^ 25', or (more probably) after the notice of Abraham's
death (cf. 24^^^ Meyer (/iV5", 253, 323) makes the improbable conjecture
that the statement referred originally to Ishmael, and formed, along with
v.^^, the conclusion of ch. 16.
XXV. 12-18.— 7%^ Genealogy and Death of Ishmael (P).
With the exception of v.^^, which is another isolated

fragment of J, the passage is an excerpt from the Toledoth
of the Priestly Code. —The names of the genealogy (i3-i6j
represent at once 'princes '

(DS"'C'3 : cf. the promise of 172*^)
and ' peoples '

(^b.^, ^^) ; that is to say, they are the assumed
eponymous ancestors of 12 tribes which are here treated as
forming a political confederacy under the name of Ishmael.
In the geography of P the Ishmaelites occupy a territory intermedi-
ate between the Arabian Cushites on the S (10''), the Edomites, Moabites,
etc., on the W, and the Aramaeans on the N (lo^^*-) i.e., roughly speak- ;
ing, the Syro-Arabian desert north of Gebel Shammar. In J they extend

W to the border of Egypt (v.^^). — The Ishmaelites have left very little
mark in history. From the fact that they are not mentioned in Eg. or
Ass. records, Meyer infers that their flourishing period was from the
1 2th to the 9th cent. B.C. {INS, 324). In the latest possible traces OT
of Ishmael as a people are in the time of David (cf. 2 Sa. 17^^, i Ch. 2"
27^), though the name occurs sporadically as that of an individual or
clan in much later times (Jer. 408^-, 2 Ki. 25=^, i Ch. 8^ 9**, 2 Ch. 19^^ 23^,
Ezr. 10^). In Gn. 37"^*, Ju, S'^*, it issyno-

possible that * Ishmaelites ' is
nymous with Bedouin general (see Mey. 326).

in
13. "i";pi n'54] are the Nabayati and Kidri of Ass. monuments (Asshur-
banipal KIB, ii. 215 ff. cf. Del. Par. 297, 299; KAT^, 151), and
: ;
possibly the Nahatcei and Cedrei of Pliny, v. 65 (cf. vi. 157, etc.). The
references do not enable us to locate them with precision, but they must
8. nD'i yii'i] —
V." 352* ; see on 6". yats-i] ux^ better D'D' yatri, as 35^^.
'1JI riDKM] so 25" 352» 4929.33, Nu. 2024-26 ^fi 3,2^ Dt. 32'«' f (all P).— 10.
mvTÎ <&. —
+ KoX t6 airiiXaiov. II. 'NT 'n*?] see on 2^^'^.
—
XXV. 8-i8 353

be put somewhere in the desert E of Palestine or Edom. The Nabataeans
of a later age (see Schiirer, GJV^ *, i. 728 ff.) were naturally identified with
n'^; by Jos. {Ant. i. 220 f.), Jer. {Qu.), W
[t^^j], as they still are by Schr.,
Schiirer, and some others. But since the native name of the Nabataeans
was 1033, the identification is doubtful, and is now mostly abandoned.
The two tribes are mentioned together in Is. 60' ri'n^ alone only Gn. :
28** 36' ; but nip is alluded to from the time of Jeremiah downwards as
a typical nomadic tribe of the Eastern desert. In late Heb. the name
was extended to the Arabs as a whole (so 3ny). ^
h\<-p^ {"Sa^Be-qk see :
on v.^)] Perhaps an Arab tribe Idihiil which Tiglath-pileser iv. {KIB,

ii. 21) appointed to watch the Egyptian frontier (not necessarily the
—
border of Egypt proper). DV'sp] a Simeonite clan (i Ch. 4^), otherwise
not known. —
14. yo^p follows Dty^D in i Ch. 4^^ Di. compares a êhel
Mistna SE of Kaf, and another near Hayil E of Teima. npn] Several —
places bearing this name are known (Di.) but the one that best suits
;
this passage is the Dumah which Arabic writers place 4 days' journey
N of Teima viz. Dumat el-êndely now called el-&df, a great oasis in
;
the S of the Syrian desert and on the border of the Nefud (Doughty,
Ar. Des. ii. 607 cf. Burckhardt, Trav. in Syr. 602). It is probably
;
the Lovixaida of Ptol. v. 18(19). 7> the Domata of Plin. vi. 157. Nfp] See —
on 10^^, and cf. Pr. 31I. A tribe Mas a is named by Tiglath-pileser
IV. along with Teima (v.^'), Saba , Hayapa (''), Idibi'il (^\ and may be
identical with the Mao-avoiof Ptol. v. 18 (19), 2, NE of Aoijfiaida. 15. inn] —
unknown. — ND'n (Is. 21^*, Jer. modern Teima, on the
25^^ Jb. 6'^) is the
W border of the Negd, c. SE of Akaba, still an important
250 miles
caravan station on the route from Yemen to Syria, and (as local inscrs.
show) ancient times the seat of a highly developed civilisation see
in :
the descriptions in Doughty, Ar. Des. i. 285 ff., 549 ff. nio: and E''?} —
are named together in i Ch. 5^'' among the East-Jordanic tribes defeated
by the Reubenites in the time of Saul, ma' is no doubt the same people
which emerges about 100 B.C. under the name 'Iroi/paioi, as a body of
fierce and predatory mountaineers settled in the Anti-Lebanon (see
Schiirer, GJV, i. 707 ff.). —
Of no"]p nothing is known. Should we read
niij as I Ch. s'" (Ball, Kit.)?— 16. Qnnvjn|] in their settlements' or <
* villages cf. Is. 42^^ the villages that Kedar doth inhabit.'
'
;
*
Dnh':??;] nyo —
(Nu. 3ii», Ezk. Ch. 6^9) is apparently a technical term
254, Ps. 692^, I
for the circular encampment of a nomadic tribe. According to Doughty

(i. 261), the Arab, dirah denotes the Bedouin circuit, but also, in some
cases, their town settlements. —
DnaxV] 'according to their peoples.' nsK
is the Ar. 'ummai, rare in Heb. (Nu. 25^°, Ps. 117^)- 17. Cf. w.'^-^. —
V.18 is a stray verse of J, whose original setting it is impossible to
determine. There is much plausibility in Ho.'s conjecture that it was
the conclusion of J's lost genealogy of Ishmael (cf. lo^^- ^). Gu, thinks
it was taken from the end of ch. 16 similarly Meyer, who makes ^^^
:
(p. 352 above) a connecting link, Di. suggests that the first half may
have followed 25^ the reference being not to the Ishmaelites but to the
Ketureans and that the second half is a gloss from 16^^. But even ^s*
;
is not consistent with ^^^, for we have seen that the Ketureans are found
E and SE of Palestine, and Sh{ir is certainly not eastward from where *

'
23
—
354 GENEALOGY OF ISHMAEL (p)
Abraham dwelt. — If Havilah has been rig-htly located on p. 202 above,

J fixes the eastern limit of the Ishmaelites in the neighbourhood of the
Gof es-Sirhan, while the western limit is the frontier of Egypt (on Sh{ir^
see on 16''). This description is, of course, inapplicable to P's Ishmaelites ;
but agrees sufficiently with the statement of E (21^^) that their home
it
was the wilderness of Paran and it includes Lahai-roi, which was

;
presumably an Ishmaelite sanctuary. Since a reference to Assyria is

here out of place, the words r\-\xs^ n3N3 must be either deleted as a gloss
(We. Di. Mey. al.), or else read n-j^trx '3 iib'n being the hypothetical N
;
Arabian tribe supposed to be mentioned in 25^ (so Gu. cf. Homm.

;
AHT, 240 f. Kon. Fiinf Landsch. 11 ff.), a view for which there is
;
very little justification. '^^^ is an adaptation of iS^^**, but throws no light

on that difficult sentence. Perhaps the best commentary is Ju. 7^^^
where again the verb '?5i has the sense of 'settle' {= ]^V in 16^^).
Hommel's restoration nSa '^?-'?y, ' in front of Kelah (a secondary gloss
'
on nWN), is a brilliant example of misplaced ingenuity.

: ;
THE HISTORY OF JACOB.

Chs. XXV. 19-XXXVI.
Setting aside ch. 26 (a misplaced appendix to the history of Abraham :
see p. 363), and ch. 36 (Edomite genealogies), the third division of the
Book of Genesis is devoted exclusively to the biography of Jacob. The
legends which cluster round the name of this patriarch fall into four
main groups (see Gu. 257 flf.).
A. Jacob and Esau :
I. The birth and youth of Esau and Jacob (25^'''^). 2. The trans-
ference of the birthright {z^-"^'). 3. Jacob procures his father's blessing
by a fraud (27).
B. Jacob and Laban :
I. Jacob's meeting with Rachel (29^"^^). 2. His marriage to Leah

and Rachel xhe births of Jacob's children {z^f^-ya^).
(29^5-30). ^^ 4.
Jacob's bargain with Laban (30^''-^'). 5. The flight from Laban and the
Treaty of Gilead (31I-32I).
C. Jacob's return to Canaan (loose and fragmentary)

I. Jacob's measures for appeasing Esau (32*'22).* 2. The meeting of
the brothers (33^'").* 3. The sack of Shechem (34). 4. The visit to
Bethel, etc. (35^""). 5. The birth of Benjamin and death of Rachel
(3^16-20), 6. Reuben's incest (352"-).
D. Interspersed amongst these are several cult-legends^ connected
with sanctuaries of which Jacob was the reputed founder.
I. The dream at Bethel (28ô-22)_a transition from A to B. 2. The
encounter with angels at Mahanaim a fragment (32'^'-). —
3. The
wrestling at Peniel {z^^''^). 4. The purchase of a lot at Shechem
^2318-20). 5. The second visit to Bethel —
partly biographical (see below)
(35^-").
The section on Jacob exhibits a much more intimate fusion of sources
than that on Abraham. The disjecta membra of P's epitome can, indeed,
be distinguished without much difficulty, viz. 2^^- ^' ^'^ 26^' 28^-" 2924-
aSb. 29 20*^. 9b. 22» 2il8a/3y3b 33l8a/5 ^^^. 9f. U-13a. 15. 22b-26. 27-29
^6*. Evcn here,
however, the redactor has allowed himself a freedom which he hardly
* Gu. recognises a second series of Jacob-Esau stories in C. i,

2
but these are entirely different in character from the group A. To all
appearance they are conscious literary creations, composed in a bio-
graphical interest, and without historical or ethnographic significance.
355
;
356 HISTORY OF JACOB
uses in the earlier portions of Gn. Not only are there omissions in
P's narrative to be supplied from the other sources, but transposition
seems to have been resorted to in order to preserve the sequence of
events in JE. —
The rest of the material is taken from the composite JE,
with the exception of ch. 34, which seems to belong- to an older stage of
tradition (see p. 418). But the component documents are no longer
represented by homogeneous sections (like chs. 16. 18 f. [J], 20. 22 [E])
they are so closely and continuously blended that their separation is
always difficult and occasionally impossible, while no lengthy context
can be wholly assigned to the one or to the other. These phenomena —
are not due to a deliberate change of method on the part of the redactors,
but rather to the material with which they had to deal. The J and E
recensions of the life of Jacob were so much alike, and so complete, that
they ran easily into a single compound narrative whose strands are
naturally often hard to unravel and of so closely knit a texture that P's
;
skeleton narrative had to be broken up here and there in order to fit

into the connexion.
To trace the growth of so complex a legend as that of Jacob is a
tempting but perhaps hopeless undertaking. It may be surmised that
the Jacob-Esau (A) and Jacob-Laban (B) stories arose independently
and existed separately, the first in the south of Judah, and the second
east of the Jordan. The amalgamation of the two cycles gave the idea
of Jacob's flight to Aram and return to Canaan and into this frame-
;
work were fitted various cult-legends which had presumably been

preserved at the sanctuaries to which they refer. As the story passed
from mouth to mouth, it was enriched by romantic incidents like the
meeting of Jacob and Rachel at the well, or the reconciliation of Jacob
and Esau ; and before it came to be written down by J and E, the
history of Jacob as a whole must have assumed a fixed form in Israelite
tradition. Its most remarkable feature is the strongly marked biographic
motive which lends unity to the narrative, and of which the writers
—
must have been conscious, the development of Jacob's character from
the unscrupulous roguery of chs. 25, 27 to the moral dignity of 32 ff.
Whether tradition saw in him a type of the national character of Israel
is more doubtful.
As regards the historicity of the narratives, it has to be observed in
the place that the ethnographic idea is much more prominent in the
first
story of Jacob than in that of any other patriarch. It is obvious that
the Jacob-Esau stories of chs. 25, 27 reflect the relations between the
nations of Israel and Edom and similarly at the end of ch. 31, Jacob
;
and Laban appear as representatives of Israelites and Aramaeans. It

has been supposed that the ethnographic motive, which comes to the
surface in these passages, runs through the entire series of narratives
(though disguised by the biographic form), and that by means of it we
may extract from the legends a kernel of ancient tribal history. Thus,
according to Steuernagel, Jacob (or YaSkob-el) was a Hebrew tribe
which, being overpowered by the Edomites, sought refuge among the
Aramaeans, and afterwards, reinforced by the absorption of an Aramaean
clan (Rachel), returned and settled in Canaan the events being placed
:
—
XXV. 19 357
between the Exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Palestine {Einw.
38 ff., 56 ff. cf. Ben. 286). There are indeed few parts of the patriarchal
:
history where this kind of interpretation yields more plausible results ;
and it is quite possible that the above construction contains elements of

truth. At the same time, the method is one that requires to be applied
with very great caution. In the first place, it is not certain that Jacob,
Esau, and Laban were originally personifications of Israel, Edom, and
Aram respectively they may be real historic individuals or they may
: ;
be mythical heroes round whose names a rich growth of legend had

gathered before they were identified with particular peoples. In the
second place, even if they were personified tribes, the narrative must
necessarily contain many features which belong to the personifications,
and have no ethnological significance whatever. If, e.g., one set of
legends describes Israel's relations with Edom in the south and another
its relations with the Aramaeans in the east, it was necessary that the
ideal ancestor of Israel should be represented as journeying from the
one place to the other but we have no right to conclude that a similar
;
migration was actually performed by the nation of Israel. And there

are many incidents even in this group of narratives which cannot
naturally be understood of dealings between one tribe and another. As
a general rule, the ethnographic interpretation must be confined to
those incidents where it is either indicated by the terms of the narrative,
or else confirmed by external evidence.
XXV. 19-34. The Birth of Esau and Jacob, and the

Transference of the Birthright (P, JE).
In answer to Isaac's prayer, Rebekah conceives and

bears twin children, Esau and Jacob. In the circumstances
of their birth (^^"^^), and in their contrasted modes of life
^27. 28j^ Hebrew legend saw prefig-ured the national charac-

teristics, the close affinity, and the mutual rivalry of the two
peoples, Edom and Israel ; while the story of Esau selling
his birthright (29-34) explains how Israel, the younger nation,
obtained the ascendancy over the older, Edom.
Analysis. —Vv.^^- "^

are taken from P ; note r\-h^r\ nVxi, tVih, is-iKri {his\
Dl« 1^5' To P must also be referred the chronological notice ^^^, which
shows that an account of the birth of the twins in that source has been
suppressed in favour of J. There is less reason to suspect a similar
omission of the marriage of Isaac before v. 2**. The rest of the passage —
belongs to the composite work JE. The stylistic criteria (ni.T, 2i*tr.
22. 23
^nv, 21
.
bis nj .T?>, ^2
. n.yy, 23) ^nd the resemblance of 2^-26 to 3827*-
.
point to J as the leading source of 2^-28 though Elohistic variants may

;
possibly be detected in 25- 27 ^j^j^ q^,^ Vro. al. ). Less certainty obtains
with regard to 29-8^, which most critics are content to assign to J (so Di.
— —
358 BIRTH OF ESAU AND JACOB (p, Je)
We. Kue. Cor. KS. Ho. Dri. al.), while others {OH. Gu. SOT. Pro.)
assig-n it to E because of the allusion in 27^. That reason is not de-
cisive, and the linguistic indications are rather in favour of J (k^, ^;
nrnajj, 32 [We. Comp."^ 36] iDtr Nip p-Vy, ^), ;
19, 20. Isaac's marriage.— P follows E (siô-^^j in de-

scribing Rebekah's Mesopotamian relatives as Aramceans
(cf. 28^), though perhaps in a different sense. Here it
naturally means descendants of *Aram, the fifth son of Shem
(lo^^). That this is a conscious divergence from the tradi-
tion of J is confirmed by 28^: see Bu. Urg. 420 ff. On —
Bethiiel^ see p. 247 above. Paddan Âram] {28'^'^''^ 31^^ 33^^
2^9. 26 ^515 jpiQ alone 48^] : ^ Mco-oTroTa/xta?) is P's equivalent
for 'Aram Naharaim in J (24^^) and ; in all probability denotes
the region round Harran (v.t.).
21-23. The pre-natal oracle. —21. With the prolonged
barrenness of Rebekah, compare the cases of Sarah, and
Rachel (29^^), the mothers of Samson (Ju. 13^), Samuel
(i Sa. i^), and John the Baptist (Lk. i^). Isaac prayed to
Vahwe] Cf. i Sa. i^^^-. No miraculous intervention is
19, pUTf 'n n'?Ni] commonly regarded as the heading- of the section
(of Gen. or) of P ending with the death of Isaac (35^^) but see the notes ;
on pp. 40 f., 235 f. The use of the formula is anomalous, inasmuch as

the birth of Isaac, already recorded in P, is included in his own gene-
alogy. It looks as if the editor had handled his document somewhat
freely, inserting- the words -j| pn^: in the original heading- DCfi^ti! niVin
(cf. v.^2). —20. 'yoke of oxen' hence (in

ps] Syr. P,.2), hx. faddan = ;
Ar.) a definite measure of land {jugerum Lane, 2353 b). A similar : cf.
sense has been claimed for Ass. padanu on the authority of II R. 62,
33 a, b (Del. Par. 135). On this view Dnx 's would be equivalent to r\-Sp
iN = field of Aram in Ho. 12^^ Ordinarily, ^«c?a«M means way (Del.
«
' * '
Hwhy 515 f.) hence it has been thought that the word is another desig-
;
nation of Harran (see 1 1^^), in the neighbourhood of which a place

Paddana {yicus prope Harran PSm. Thes. 3039) has been known from :
early Christian times Noldeke, however, thinks this may be due to a

:
Christian localisation of the biblical story {EB^ i. 278). Others less

plausibly connect the name with the kingdom of Patin, with its centre
N of the Lake of Antioch (Wi. KAT^, 38).
21. nny] peculiar to J in Hex. Ex. 8*- «• ^- ^- =» 928 lo"- ". In Ar. 'atr
:
and 'a/fra/ mean animals hence Heb. Trivn (Hiph. may

slain in sacrifice ;
everywhere be read instead of Qal) probably referred originally to

sacrifice accompanied by prayer, though no trace of the former idea
survives in Heb. ** Das Gebet
ist der Zweck oder die Interpretation
:
— '
XXV. 19-25 359

suggested ; and our only regret is that this glimpse of
everyday family piety is so tantalisingly meagre. —22.
During pregnancy the children crushed one another\ {v,i.) in
a struggle for priority of birth.

Comp. the story of Akrisios and Proitus (Apol. Bihl. ii. 2. i ff.), sons
of Abas, king" of Argos, who Karb. yaarpbs ixkv ^ti 6vTes iffracxlaôv irphs
6X\-fjKovs. The sequel presents a certainparallelism to the history of

Esau and Jacob, which has a bearing on the question whether there is
an element of mythology behind the ethnological interpretation of the
biblical narrative (see pp. 455 f.). Another parallel is the Polynesian
myth of the twins Tang-aroa and Rongo (Che. TBI, 356).
Rebekah, regarding this as a portent, expresses her

dismay in words not quite intelligible in the text If it [is :
to] he so why then am I

J ?] v.t. to inquire of Vahwe]. . .
—
to seek an oracle at the sanctuary. 23. The oracle is —
communicated through an inspired personality, like the Arab.
kahin (We. HeidJ^ 134 fF.), and is rhythmic in form [ib. 135).
— two nations] whose future rivalries are prefigured in the
struggle of the Infants. —
The point of the prophecy is in the
last line : The elder shall serve the younger (see on 272^* *^).
24-26. Birth and naming of the twins. — 24. Cf.
2327-30^ the only other description of a twin-birth in OT. — 25.
••J^DnN —either tawny or red-haired — is a play on the name
des Opfers, die Begriffe lieg-en nahe bei einander" (We. 142). —22. issinij
(&. iffKlpruv (the same word as Lk. i*^^), perhaps confusing pn, *run,'
with fsi, 'break.' More correctly, Aq. avvedXdad-qcrav; S. StcTrdXaioj'.
'33K n? no"? }3 dk] (& ei oCtwj fioi fi^Wei yivetrdai, tva tL fioi tovto; But the
njmerely emphasises the intern (G-K. § 136 fr), and the latter part of the
sentence seems incomplete: U
quid necesse fuit concipere? ^ 1 1 Vr>\
PI Graetz supplies n-jn Di. Ba. Kit. nm (cf. 27^') Frankenberg

]ji.>j. ; ;
(GGA, 1901, 697) changes '33X to -thk, while Gu. makes it 'h n|K (Ps. gi^*'),
—
with ni as subj. 23. dn^] a poetic word in Hex. only 272^ (J). Tyx] ; —
'the small[er],' in the sense of 'younger,' is characteristic of J (1931.34.
85.38 2g« 4388 ^gH Jog. 6^ [l Ki. l68^] f).
24. D'Din] properly D'DNn (so as 3827.-25. '^^d-jk] used again only
Jiu),
of David, i Sa. 16^2 17^. It is usually explained of the ' reddish brown
hue of the skin but there is much to be said for the view that it means
;
* red-haired (fflr irvppiKtjs,

'
U
rufus so Ges. Tu. al.). The incongruity :
of the word with the name V^j'y creates a suspicion that it may be either
a gloss or a variant from a parallel source (Di.) for various conjectures :
see Bu. Urg. 217^ Che. EB, 1333 Wi. AOF, i. 344 f. V^y has no Heb.
; ; —
etymology. The nearest comparison is Ar. 'aVa-^ (so most) =' hirsute'
—
360 BIRTH OF ESAU AND JACOB (p, Je)
Edom (see on v.^^) ; similarly, all over like a mantle of hair

(^VK^) is a play on Se'ir, the country of the Edomites (36^).
It is name 'Esdw itself (on which v.i.)
singular that the
finds no express etymology. 26a. with his hand holding
Esau's heel] (Ho. 12*) a last effort (v.^^) to secure the
advantage of being born first. There are no solid grounds
for thinking (with Gu. Luther [INS, 128], Nowack, al.) that
Hos. 12** (V^^<"n&^ i|^y P^^) presupposes a different version
of the legend, in which Jacob actually wrested the priority
from his brother (cf. 38^^^). The clause is meant as an
explanation of the name *
Jacob.'
27, 28. Their manner of life. —27. Esau becomes a
man skilled in hunting,
of the field] It is hardly a man
necessary to suppose that the phrases are variants from
(also * stupid '), though that would require as

Heb. equivalent IV'J? strict
(Dri.). A connexion with SamemrUm, and
the Phoen. Ouawoj, brother of
a hero of the chase, is probable, though not certain. There is also a
goddess' Astt, figured on Eg. monuments, who has been thought to be
a female form of Esau (Muller, AE, 316 f.). iNipnJ ffi^ Nnpn, as v.^S; —
but MX has pi. both times. In any case the subj. is indef. 26. apyji is —
a contraction of ^NDpy (cf. m^\ Jos. 15**, Ju. ii^^- with "^X'nn?:, Jos. 19"-
27 nn:, 2 Ch. 26^ with '?^<f3:, Jos. 15^^) which occurs (a) as a place name
;
in central Palestine on the Ust of Thothmes ni. (No 102: Y'kb'r)',*

and {b) as a personal name Ydktib-ilu) f in a Bab. contract tablet of the
(
age of PJammurabi. The most obvious interpretation of names of this

type is to take them as verbal sentt., with 'El as subj. God overreaches,* :
*
or 'follows,' or rewards,' according to the sense given to the J 2p]3 (see

*
Gray, HPN, 218).:!: They may, however, be nominal sentt. Ya'kob is :

*
God (see Mey. 282) in which case the meaning of the name 3pyji is
' ;
pushed a step farther back. The question whether Jacob was origin-
ally a tribe, a deity, or an individual man, thus remains unsettled by
—
etymology. At end of v., ffi adds 'Pe/S^/c/ca, an improvement in style. —
* Mey. ZATW, vi. 8 ; INS, 251 f., 281 f. ; Muller, AE, 162 f. ; Luther,
ZATW, xxi. 60 fF. — The name has since been read by Muller in a list
of Ramses II., and (defectively written) in one of Ramses ill. : see

MVAG, 1907, i. 27. — Questioned by Langdon, ET, xxi. (1909), p. 90.
t Homm. AHT, 96, 112. According to H., the contracted form
Yakubu also occurs in the Tablets {ib. 203^).
X In Heb. the vb. (a denom. from ^pj;, heel ') is only used with allusion '
to the story or character of Jacob (27^^, Ho. 12^, Jer. g^ in Jb. 37^ the :
text is doubtful), and expresses the idea of insidiousness or treachery.

So 2p.ii (Ps. 49^t)> 3PV (Jer. 17^), nspv (2 Ki. lo'^f)- The meanings
'follow' and 'reward' are found in Arab. (BDB, 784a).
XXV. 26-30 3^1
different documents. Though this conception of Esau's

occupation is not consistently maintained (see 33^), it has
doubtless some ethnographic significance ; and game is
said to be plentiful in the Edomite country (Buhl, Edomiier^

43). —Jacob, on the other hand, chooses the half-nomadic
pastoral life which was the patriarchal ideal. Dri K^'^N, else-
where 'an ethically blameless man' (Jb. 1^ etc.), here
describes the orderly^ well-disposed douce '), man [Scotice, *
as contrasted with the undisciplined and irregular huntsman.

— 28. A preparation for ch. 27, which perhaps followed im-
mediately on these two verses. V.^^, however, is also pre-
supposed by
29-34. Esau parts with the birthright. The — superi-
ority of Israel to Edom is popularly explained by a typical
incident, familiar to the pastoral tribes bordering on the
desert, where the wild huntsman would come famishing to
the shepherd's tent to beg for a morsel of food. At such
times the man of the field is at the mercy of the tent-
'
'
dweller; and the ordinary Israelite would see nothing

immoral in a transaction like this, where the advantage is
—
pressed to the uttermost. The legend takes no account of
the fact that Edom, as a settled state older than Israel,
must have been something more than a mere nation of
hunters. The contrasted types of civilisation —^Jacob the
shepherd and Esau the hunter — were firmly fixed in the
popular mind ; and the supremacy of the former was an
obvious corollary. — 29. Jacob stewed something: an inten-
tionally indefinite description, the nature of the dish being
reserved as a surprise for v.^*. — 30. Let m,e gulp some of the
red —that red there 1^ With a slight vocalic change {v.i,)y we
28. VE3 'V^ '?] A curious phrase, meaning 'venison was to his taste.'
It would be easier to read (with Ba, al.) vd^ or an adj. (3ic3?) may have ;
fallen out. (Ir<S appear to have read 'r\-^.
29. TTJ —nn] only here in the lit. sense; elsewhere =* act pre-
"111
sumptuously.' The derivative TU (2 Ki. 4^, Hag-. 2^^) with rare prefix
na (common in Ass.). —30. 'Jc^'ivn (Stt. Xe7.)] a coarse expression suggest-
ing bestial voracity ; used in NH of the feeding of cattle. — DiNn Dixn]
The repetition of the same word is awkward, even in an expression of
impatient greed. The emendation referred to above consists in reading
—
362 ESAU SELLS HIS BIRTHRIGHT (je)
may render ; some of that red seasoning (strictly obsonium * ').
—Êd67n\ a play on the word for '

red ' (0*^^). The name is
" a memento of the never-to-be-forgotten greed and stupidity

of the ancestor" (Gu.). —
31. Jacob seizes the opportunity
to secure the long-coveted * birthright,' i.e. the superior
status which properly belonged to the first-born son.
The rare term iTib? denotes the advantages and rights usually
enjoyed by the eldest son, including such things as (a) natural vigour^
of body and character (Gn. 49^, Dt. 21^": px n'?'N-i.), creating a pre-
||
sumption of success in life, (6) a position of honour as head of the

family (Gn. 27^^ 49^), and (c) a double share of the inheritance (Dt.
2ii5ff.)^ By a legal fiction this status was conceived as transferable
from the actual first-born to another son who had proved himself more
worthy of the dignity (i Ch. 5^''). When applied to tribes or nations,
it expresses superiority in political might or material prosperity and ;
this is the whole content of the notion in the narrative before us. The
idea of 5'/>?W/wa/ privilege, or a mystic connexion (such as is suggested
in Heb. I2^''^-) between the birthright and the blessing of ch. 27, is
foreign to the spirit of the ancient legends, which owe their origin to
aetiological reflexion on the historic relations of Israel and Edom.
The passage furnishes no support to the ingenious theory of Jacob's
{Bibl. Arch. 46 ff.), that an older custom of "junior right " is presupposed
by the patriarchal tradition.
32. Esau's answer reveals the sensual nature of the

man : the remoter good is sacrificed to the passing necessity
of the moment, which his ravenous appetite leads him to
exaggerate. —HÔ? T]>n does not mean *
exposed to death
sooner or later' (lEz. Di. al.), but ^ at the point of death
now.' —34* The climax of the story is Esau's unconcern
even when he discovers that he has bartered the birthright
for such a trifle as a dish of lentil soup. ^''^^V. (2 Sa. 17^*,
23^^, Ezk. 4^), still acommon article of diet in Egypt and

Syria, under the name 'adas: the colour is said to be * a
darkish brown ' (DBy iii. 95a). —The last clause implies a
certain moral justification of the transaction : if Esau was
defrauded, he was defrauded of that which he was incapable
of appreciating.
the first Di^n after Ar. '?tfa7«=* seasoning or condiment for bread' (cf.
v.^) : so Boysen (cited in Schleusner^, i. 969), T. D. Anderson {ap. Di.).

This is better than (Dri. al.) to make the change in both places, ffi {rod
eyp^fjLaros tov Tvppov tovtov) and 1-T {de coctione hac rufa) seem to differentiate
the words.—31. DV3]= 'first of all,'as=», i Sa. 2^^ 1 Ki. iî 22'(BDB, 400 b).
XXV. 3I-XXVI. I 363
Ch. XXVI.—Isaac and the Philistines (J, R, P).
The chapter comprises the entire cycle of Isaac-legends

properly so called ; consisting, as will be seen, almost ex-
clusively of incidents already related of Abraham (cf. esp.
ch. 20 f.). The introductory notice of his arrival in Gerar
(^"® : cf. 20^'-) is followed by his denial of his marriage with
Rebekah (^~^^
||
121^^- 202^-), his success in agriculture (^^"^^
—the only circumstance without an Abrahamic parallel), his
quarrels with the Philistines about wells (^^"^^ 2y^^-)^ and,

||
lastly, the Covenant of Beersheba, with an account of the

naming of the place p^"^^ ||
21^2-34), —jhe notice of Esau's
wives (^*^-) is an excerpt from P.
Source. —The
style, except in *^*- and some easily recog-nised re-
dactional patches (^*^r ^^^b. sb-e. is. is gee the notes), is unmistakably
.
Yahwistic: cf. mn' (2.12.22.28 [even in the mouth of Abimelech, '^•

25. 28
29]); HKnO n310, ' (24^^); TPB-H, «; p'ny.l, 22 (138) ; m.T 08^3 Nnp, n^^,
(24^^) ; m.T 11^3, 29 (24^^). Some but these
critics find traces of E in i*-,
—
are dubious. The relation of the passage to other strata of the J
document is very difficult to determine. On the one hand, the
extremely close parallelism to ch. 20 f. suggests that it is a secondary
compilation based on JE 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 ch. 26 is a continuation of the source distinguished as J^ in

the history of Abraham, (i) The Abrahamic parallels all belong to
the Negeb tradition (J^ and E) and it is natural to think that J^, re-
;
presenting 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 (cf. q'ptJ'n, p^nyn, '' db'3 Nnp, '' nti, and
all the phrases of 25»). (2) The ideal of the patriarchal character
agrees with that which we find in J^ (magnanimity, peaceableness, etc.).
— In any case, it is to be observed that the ch. stands out of its proper
order. The Rebekah of '*• is plainly not the mother of two grown-up
sons, as she is at the close of ch. 25 and 27^ is the immediate con-
;
tinuation of 25^* or 28 (see We. Comp.^ 30).
Isaac migrates to Gerar. Cleared of interpola-

1-6. —
tions, the section reads (^**) There was a famine in the
:
land (^^) and Isaac went to Abimelech^ king of the PhilistineSy

;
to Gerar. (^**) And Yahwe appeared to him and said, (^*)
Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee and bless thee.
(^"') So Isaac abode in Gerar. — I. Isaac comes probably from
— — — —
364 ISAAC AT GERAR (j)
Beer Lahai-roi, 25^^. — On Ahimelech and Gerar^ see 20^'-.
The assumption that Gerar was a Philistine kingdom is an

anachronism (see on 10^*), made also in J'^ (21^^) but not in
E. —3a. and bless thee\ a promise fulfilled in Isaac's success-
ful husbandry (^^^•), and other tokens of the divine favour
(22- 24. 28f.j^ with no reference primarily to the blessing of
Abraham.
^*i3y (Dm3N — naSo)
a redactional gloss (RJ or RJ^), pointing- back to
is
12^". — ^*/3^ ('1JI obviously inconsistent with ^, and is best ex-
nn'W) is
plained as a gloss from the same hand as ^""^y (KS. Ho.). Di. Gu.
al. consider it a variant from a parallel narrative of E (cf. yh\< nOK nB'N
with 22"^), to which Di. quite unnecessarily assigns also ^*a and ^ but the ;
evidence is too weak to warrant the improbable hypothesis of a second

E version of 20^^*. ^^'^ an expansion in the manner of 22^^'^^, emphasis-
ing the immutability of the oath to Abraham (see on 15''*), and showing
many traces of late composition.
7-1 1. Rebekah's honour compromised. — 7, 8. Isaac's

lie (as 12^^ 2o2), and the king's accidental discovery of it.
looked out at a 'window\ possibly into a court of the palace :
cf. 2 Sa. 11^. —ns pnvp]

exchanging conjugal caresses (see
—
on 21^), a play on the name Isaac. The vb. is nowhere
else construed with HK. —
9, 10. Abimelech's rebuke of Isaac,
and the latter's self-exculpation. thou mightest have brought

guilt\ Cf. 20^. It is an instance of the writer's timid
handling of the theme (see below) that no actual complica-

tion arises. —
II. So stern an injunction would have been in
place in ch. 12 or ch. 20, but here it is unmotived.
That the three narratives are variations of a common
xt}'^^- 20, 26'^"^^
theme, appears not only from their close material resemblance, but also
3. msnNn] so v.* Juh. read sing. The nearest analogies to this

; ffi
use of pi. (which and mostly late) are 1 Ch. 13^, 2 Ch. 11^' =
is rare
'districts' (of Palestine). Skh] see 19^. —
4a. The comparison with the
stars, as 15' 22^^. —
4b, 5 almost verbally identical with 22^^ note esp. :
the uncommon "ik'n apy. —

5b is made up of Priestly and Dtnic. expressions :
cf. Lv. 26^^, Dt. 6^^ 28'*'" 30^° etc. —

mccD n.otJ' denotes chiefly the service
of priests in the sanctuary, but is here used in a wider sense (cf. Lv.
18^ 22^, Dt. 11^, Jos. 22^, I Ki. 2^, Mai. 3^^). The expression is highly
characteristic of P (Ho. Einl. 344).— ani3N] ;uuffi^ + ?i'nN.
7. Dipon '5J':k] cf. 29^^ 38^-, Ju. 19^^. — a very rare and question-
"ibxl?]
able use of the word as a real inf. {dicere, not dicendo). Should 'ntJ'N be
deleted? jjx(& read N'n 'pfN. 10. — liyto] G-K. § 106/).— nN2m] cons. pf. ;
*thou wouldst (in that case) have brought.' — II. Dyn] juxffi iDy.
— '
XXVI. 3-i6 365

from particular phrases recurrent in each e.g. Nin 'nnN, ann, ij*? n'ry nNrriD,
:
^^J,HNiD [riD'] naitj, etc. (cf. Kuen. One?, i. 228). Although many good
scholars (We. Kue. Ho. al.)are of a different opinion, the present passage
appears to be the most colourless and least original form of the tradition.
In li^'^^- (J**) 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 ch. 20 (E),
the connexion of ideas is in the main preserved though a tendency to ;
soften the harsher aspects of the incident appears in God's communica-

tion 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 zG^' (J^) 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 (v.^), 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
criticalsituation arises and the exemplary self-restraint manifested
;
by the men of Gerar affords no adequate basis for the stern injunction
of ", which would have been appropriate enough in ch. 12 or ch. 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 J^, E, J^. 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 com-
parison in Gu. 197 ff.
12-16. — Isaac's successful husbandry. — 12. Cultiva-

tion on a small scale is still occasionally practised by the
Bedouin (see Palmer, Des. of Ex. ii. 296). The only other
allusions in the patriarchal history are 30^* 37*^. 13-16.
Isaac's phenomenal prosperity excites the jealousy of the
Philistines, which leads to his enforced departure. 15. See —
on ^^ below.
13-16. Gu. thinks the vv. are a pendant to the Rebekah incident, corre-
sponding to the gifts of the heathen king (12^^ 20^^) and the expulsion of
Abraham (12-"). It is more natural to consider ^^ff- the continuation of ^
;
indeed, it might fairly be questioned whether "^"^^ is not a later insertion,

interrupting the continuity of the main narrative. 12. Dn^tr] <&^ —
wrongly ony"^, barley.' The word is '\V.V, meaning measure or value
' * ' '
(cf. ny^= reckon,' in Pr. 23'', with allied words in J. Aram, and NH
*
esp. ;
NH )iy'B'=* measure'). — 13. ViJi -\hr\ iS'i] G-K. § 113 w.

—— ;
366 ISAAC AT GERAR (j)
17-22. Isaac's wells. — Seeon2i25f'. — 17. Isaac retires to

the Wddi of Gerdr] probably the ^rf el-Gerary above (SE)
Unimel'G.(20^), into which several viâdis converge, including
W. er-Ruhaibeh and W. es-Seba .— 19, 20. The first
(v.22)
well is named 'Esek annoyance (*

') the name has not been ;
—
found. 21. Sitnah (* hostility ') is possibly to be sought in
the W. Sutnet er-Ruhaibeh, close to Ruhaibeh, though v.^^
seems to imply that the places were some distance apart.
—22. Rehohdth (' room ') is plausibly identified with er-
Ruhaibehy in the wadi of the same name, about 20 m. SW
of Beersheba (a description in Palmer, ii. 382 f.).
In the narrative, Isaac himself was represented as the discoverer of

these wells, thoug-h another tradition (partially preserved in zi"^^')
ascribed the discovery and naming of them to Abraham. Vv.^'^-^âre
an ancient gloss, inserted to harmonise the two views by the supposition
that the wells had been stopped up by the Philistines, —â practice
frequently resorted to in desert warfare (2 Ki. ^^).
23-25. The theophany at Beersheba. 23. went up] —

though Bir es-Seba' lies considerably lower than er-Ruhaibeh.
— 24. That an inaugural theophany (see on 2J) is meant, is 1
clear from v.^s. According to this narrative, no patriarch

had previously visited Beersheba (cf. 21^^). my servant] Sir
reads * thy father.' Nowhere else in Gen. is Abraham
spoken of as the servant of Yah we. 25a. Note the corre- —
spondence of the phraseology with 12^^' 13*- ^^ 25b. Seev.^.
17. so (of an individual) 33^^ (E).— 18. 'D'3] «x(!ErF, Juh. n?a.—
|nî]
DiDDO'i] usedin the same sense 2 Ki. 3^^- ^5, 2 Ch. 32'- '". On the masc. •*•
suf. (so v.^**), see G-K. §§ 60 h, 135 0.— 19. '?n33] ffi + Vepipwv.—20. ptry]
&-K. X€7. poy is common in NH, Tg-. in the sense of ' be busy, occupied '
in Syr. it means durus, asper, molestus, fuit hence in Ethpa. difficilem

:
se prcehuit. —
21. ®r pr. pn^' D^p pnyn] (with following vb. in sing.), as
v.22: cf.128.—22. unsi] (»&Fô«iDn, cf. 28^
24, 25aa are regarded by Gu. as an interpolation of the same
character as ^'^'^ but the linguistic marks of late authorship which
;
abound in ^^'^ 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 v.^ implies a different orig-in of the
sacredness of Beersheba from 2'**- the consecration of the sanctuary
:
and the naming of the place are separate things which were evidently
—
kept distinct in J** (21^). 25. n^'i] synonymous with njn in Nu. 21^';
elsewhere only used of a grave (50^) or pit (Ex. 21^ etc.).
—
:
XXVI. 17-33 3^7
26-33- The treaty with Abimelech. — 26. 'Ahuzzath

{v. I.) his friend\ his confidential adviser, or 'vizier,' —an
official title common
Egypt from an early in period, and
amongst the Ptolemies and Seleucids (i Mac. 2^^ 10^^; cf.
2 Sa. 16I6'., I Ki. 45, I Ch. 2f%—Pikdi\ see on 2122.-27.

See vv.^*- ^^. —28. The n^X is properly the curse invoked on
the violation of the covenant ; n"'")3 refers to the symbolic
ceremony (not here described) by vi^hich it was ratified (see
—
on 15^^'"). 29. Abimelech dictates the terms of the covenant
cf. 2i23. —
30, 31. The common meal seems to be a feature of
the covenant ceremony (cf. 31^^^), though here the essential
transaction takes place on the morning of the folloviîng day.
— 32, 33. The naming of the well (2^^). The peculiar form
Sib' ah (v.i,) is perhaps chosen as a compromise between
ny3K^, oath (as Gu. points), and y?C^, the actual name of the
* '
place.
It is possible to recognise in these imperfectly preserved leg-ends a

between nomadic tribes of
reflexion of historic or pre-historic relations
the Neg-eb (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 (J*^) the orig-inal purpose of the

covenant of Beersheba still appears it was to put a stop to these :
disputes, and secure the rig-ht of Israel at least to the important sanctuary
of Beersheba (21^). In the later variations this connexion is lost sight
26. ninK] (for the ending, see Dri. Sam. 107) has sometimes been
mistaken for the noun meaning * possession' (17^), taken m the sense
of a body holding together (see Ra. ad loc.) so C° iniDm nyo, company ;
*
of his friends ; Jer. collegium amicorum ejus Gr.-Ven. KcnToxn ê rov

' ;
<f>IXov (Field). —
jno] a rare word for companion,' sodalis (Ju. 14^^' *152- ^^ ^'^
2 Sa. 3^, Pr. 12^ (?) I9't)> whose use in the story of Samson suggested
—
the pvix<pay(aybs of fflr here. 28. irnir^] need not be deleted (ffit^F, al.).
The form mra (42^3, Jos. 22^4, Ju. iiô, 2 Sa. 21^, Jer. 251^ Ezk. lo^- fi'-t)
is always two-sided, and is here resolved into the commoner pai pg, . . .
exactly as 2 Sa. 21''. Hence in the first case ** us " means all the parties
to the covenant, in the second only the Philistine representatives.
29. nfc'yn] On the -, see G-K. § 75 hh. nny nnN] juu. nnx nny, (& 'n 'yi, —
a more natural order. —32. 1^] ffi strangely reads Oi^x [eiipofxev ijdup]. —
33. n^N] ffiS better no??.— ny??' {dir. Xey.)] (5 "Op/cos; but Aq. S. irXrjatiovqy
V Abundantiam, & \\*^ro {n-ji'y, Ezk. 16^^). In spite of the interchange

of sibilants, onetempted to agree with these authorities Jerome
is :
pertinently asks Quae enim etymologia est, propterea vocarl j'ura-

:
'
mentum, quod aquam nan (cf. €r) invenissent ? Dty] dSt^ pr. .xnjj. '
—
— — — .
368 JACOB SECURES THE BLESSING (je)
of, and the covenant becomes a general treaty of peace and amity, which
may also have had historic importance for a later period. In E there
is no mention of contested wells at all, nor even a hint that Abraham
had dug the well of Beersheba while J^ seems expressly to bar any
;
connexion between the covenant and the discovery of the well.
34, 35. Esau's Hittite wives (P).— In P, Esau is
represented as still living with Isaac at Mamre (35^^).
Hittite for *
Canaanite '
: see on 23^. It is possible, however,
that in the case of Basemath the true text was *
Hivvite '
(so
ffi^S). — On the names, see on 36^*-.
XX VI I. I -45 .
How Jacob secured his Fathet^s
Blessing (JE).
This vivid and circumstantial narrative, which is to be

read immediately after 25^"* (or 25^^), 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 considera-
tions which has been thought surprising in a writer with the
fine insight of J (Di.).
ethical It must be remembered,
however, that ''J" is a collective symbol, and embraces

many tales which sink to the level of ordinary popular
morality. We may fairly conclude with Gu. (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 We. Coynp.'^ 34-36): (a) 33. 34 y
35-38, !„ 35
(nDNM) we are recalled to the same stage as the "V3K''1 of ^ ; and ^ (Esau's
cry) carries us forward to the same point as ^. (6) ^^"^ ^^'* here — II
:
again nDN'i commences two sections which must be alternative, since

—
both lead up to the blessing (inana'i). (c) A less obvious doublet may
be discovered in ^^"^^* ^^ ^' in the one case Jacob is disguised by the
II :
skin of the kids, in the other by wearing Esau's clothes. {d) ^'ô. 30b^_ II
—
{e) ^^ ^"â (to ICd).
II —
The language is predominantly that of J, with occa-
sional traces of E and that the incident was actually recorded in both
;
these documents appears from chs, 32, 35^ '. In the parallels just en-
XXVII. i-s 369
umerated, however, the stylistic criteria are hard to trace and in the ;
attempt to disentangle them almost everything- hangs on the word ni.T

in ^. As to (b), 24-27 jg certainly J, and ^^'^ consequently E it will ;
follow that in (c) ^' belongs to J and "-"• i» to E. With regard to (a), it
is almost impossible to decide which is J's variant and which E's. Gu.
assigns ^^'^^ to E, on the somewhat subtle ground that in J (^ ^7) Isaac
is ignorant who it is that has personated Esau, whereas in E {^- ^) he
knows very well that it is Jacob (so Off, SOT). Most critics have
taken the opposite view, but without any decisive positive reason. See
—
Gu. p. 270 f. Pro. I9f. 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 naively) by his
fondness for venison (25^^). 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 25^^. — I. Blindness is spoken of as a frequent concomitant
of old age (cf. 4810, i Sa. 3^, i Ki. 14*, Ec. 128: ct. Dt. 34^).
— 3* ^^y quiver (v.t.) and thy bow] the latter, the hunter's
weapon (Is. 7^*; cf. 2 Ki. 13^^). — 4. that my soul may bless
thee] so ^^' ^' ^^. As if the expiring nephesh gathered up all
its force in a single potent and prophetic wish. The uni-

versal belief in the efficacy of a dying utterance appears
often in OT {^S^^^- 502^*-, Dt. 33, Jos. 23, 2 Sa. 2Z^«', i Ki.
2^^-y 2 Ki. 13^*^).— 5. But Rebekah was listening] cf. iSô.
Theclose connexion of the blessing and the eating, which is in-

sisted 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. Ho. compares the

physical stimuli by which prophetic inspiration was induced (cf. i Sa.
I. pnDni] On vav cons, in the subord. cl., cf. G-K. §111 q. — The last
el. ('1JI TD«'i) contains a characteristic formula of E (cf. 22^- ''' ^^ 31^^ : so
v.^*), andprobably to be assigned to that source. 2. Nrnjn] J see on
is — ;
12^^.-3. '"pfi] (jjuu T''?'i) only here, from ^y nSn, hang,' is a more suitable
:
*
designation of the 'quiver' (OÎJEJ lEz.) than of the 'sword' (STORa.).

— nyx Keth. may here be noun of unity (G-K. § 122 t)=* piece of game
*
from n>; (QSre) (so Tu. De. Di. Gu.). Elsewhere (42^5 452a 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 RS^y 222 f.); but the identity of the a^,^ is doubted
(BDB, 845 a).—5. N'an"?] <& v^n^' is better, unless both words should be
read.
24
—— — —
lo^^-, 2 Ki. 3^^) Gu. surmises that a sacrificial meal, establishing com-
;
munion with the Deity, was originally intended (cf. 'JsJ*?, v.'^ see Nu. 23^). ''
:
Rebekah's stratagem.—The mother's jealousy

6-17.
son (25^^) is aroused by what she has over-
for her favourite
heard and she instantly devises a scheme whose daring
;
and ingenuity illustrate the Hebrew notion of capable and

quick-witted womanhood. 7* before Va/iwe] in the solemn —
consciousness of Yahwe's
see on v.*. II-13 presence :
probably belong to E
and may be omitted from
(see above),
the other narrative, with the effect of making Rebekah's
initiative still more apparent Jacob obeys her without a :
word. II. a hairy man] see 25^^. The objection shows

just enough shrewdness on Jacob's part to throw his mother's
resourcefulness into bolder relief. — 13. On me he thy curse] cf.
16^. — 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 Ho. points out)
have been still an unmarried man (ct. P 26^^^). 16 goes —
with ^^"^^ (E), and may be removed without breach of con-
tinuity. 17. Rebekah's part being now ended, Jacob is left
to his own resources.
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 Vahwe, etc. —
^:S7 Tr\X>J\] caused the right thing to happen, as 24^^
(J).
21-23 "i3.y be the direct continuation of ^^^ (E) ; the clause
6. n33] cf. "iJ?, v.° ; the addition of jai^n (ffl^) is unnecessary. — 8. 'Vp? and
'1J1 n?'t<j2 may be variants : ace. to Di. 5 V^'V is characteristic of E, and
h])D\ff of
J. —
12. ynyno ( yyn)]), properly * a stammerer (cf. An tdtda) then
^ '
*a mocker '(2 Ch. 36^^); hence not a mere practical joker (Kn-Di.), but a
profaner of religious solemnities (Ho. Gu.). — 'riNnm] 5' —jAjZo (2 s.f ).
— 13. ^S given by Di. as a mark of E, in distinction from J's pi (19^ 24^).
is
— 15. nj3 being masc. (exc. Lv. 6^), and nncn in usage a subst., it is
best to suppose nj? repeated as nom. regens before the gen. (otherwise
Day. § 27).
'1JI "iDN'i ^ is probably to be assigned to E for the same reason as
18.
^^,though something similar must have stood in the other source Gu., :
however, makes ^^'^ the direct sequel of (nox'i) v3N-'?n in '^^ (J), giving ^^*
to E.— N3'i] (JRF^ N?;i (cf. 2^).— 23. in:na'i] Another view of the con-
!<*• ^•'-
— — ;
XXVII. 6-27 371
and so he blessed him must have been followed bythe words of

blessing. 24-27 bring the parallel narrative (J) 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 v.^^ would

have no meaning), on the other it supplies the sensuous im-
pression which suggests the words of the blessing 27b
(so Gu.).
The section, seen, is composite (perhaps ^^ "*• ^"^ ^s — g y i9b.

we have
20.
24-27-- J) primary documents the interview was less complicated,
. jj^ j.j^g
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 J as it stands, it would seem
that Isaac's suspicions are first aroused by the promptness of the sup-
posed hunter's return, and perhaps only finally allayed by the smell of
Esau's garments. In E it is the voice which almost betrays Jacob,
and the feel of his arms which saves him from detection. For details,
see the footnotes.
27b-29. The blessing is partly natural (2^^- ^8), partly politi-

cal (^^), 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, Gn. d^(f^^'^ Dt. 33^^^-
and it is not improbable that its Elohistic elements {y.i.)
originated in N. Israel. 27b (J), the smell of a richfield\ cf.
struction, avoiding the division of documents, in Dri. T. § 75. The

narrator is supposed to "hasten at once to state briefly the issue of the
whole, and afterwards, as thoug-h forgetting that he had anticipated,
proceed to annex the particulars by the same means " (l cons.). Ew. and
Hitz. applied the same principle to several other passages (see ih.') but \
the explanation seems to me not very natural. 24. nnx] ux nnxn. 25. — —
'33 TJflD] ffi '43 ?i-j'sp but see v.^^
;
27b-29. The critical analysis of the blessing, precarious at the best,

depends on such considerations as these m.T 27b points decisively to J ; :
D'n'?Kn 28^ less certainly, to E, which is confirmed by B'Tm \n (cf. ^^). ^sa^
(to D'ON*?) is J because of the last word (252^) ; and ^^ because of the
resemblance to 128. ^sa^g
(from mn) is E (cf. ^) ; (so Gu.). KS. and Ho.
differ first in treating 29a^b ^^g -wholly thus assigning ^^â to E and
||
^^ô.^
*^ to J (thus far Pro. agrees with them) then in the inference that ^ is J ;
;
and, lastly, in the reflex inference that ^Sb jg g, xhe metrical structure —
is irregular. Parallelism appears in ^^ and in ^9 throug-hout. ^^^ falls
into three trimeters ; but ^ (also J)can only be scanned in tetrameters.
In E trimeters and tetrameters are combined. See Sievers, i. 405, 577,
ii. 79, 316. 27b. mty] xix (ungrammatically) n'?d mtj'n. The nSd, how-
— — — — :
Dt. 33^^ (v.z.). —

28 (E). fat places of the earthy for the image
28^ Nu. 13^^. ** Heaven and earth conspire to give
cf. Is. 5^
him of their best" (Gu.). com and must] often combined

with 'oil' in pictures of agricultural felicity (Dt. 7^^, Ho.
28. 22 etc.). zgsia (J). Peoples . . . nations] cf. 25^^. The
reference is to the neighbouring nations subdued by David
(2 Sa. 8). —29a^ (E) resembles a tribal blessing (cf. 49^).
At all events the mention oi brethren (pi.) shows that the im-
mediate situation is forgotten. —29b (J). Cf. 12^.
Esau sues in vain for a blessing. —30. Both
30-40.
J and E 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 (v.^^). — 33. Hô^ then^
is he. . . . The words express but a momentary un-
?]
certainty ; is finished Isaac knows on

before the sentence
whom the blessing has fallen. The clause is a real parallel
to ^, but a difference of conception is scarcely to be thought
of (Gu. : 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 ^. Here J's narrative breaks and ^ (E)
off,
resumes from the standpoint of ^^. 36. Is it — because he was

—
named Overreacher] that he must always be overreaching
ever, is rendered in ffiU, and should perhaps be retained. 28. 'JDj^d] —

II
and therefore = -apf + IP (G-K. § 20 w), from [p-f (^H). 29. innn'M]
Sap, —
the final should be supplied with Qre and xm. (see next cl.).
1 nin = n:.L?] —
nin (Nin) is the common Aram, and NH form of hm (cf. Ph. Nin = iTn, K;n)
in OT Heb. only here, Is. 16*, Neh. 6«, Jb. 37", Ec. 2^ ii'f, and (ace.
to Ex. 3^*) in the name mn\ Its occurrence in early Heb., as here, is
surprising. — —
n*3J] v.'^f. ^'n^/"] ^r^T*^ ^'H?^, wrongly. IDN '33] (&. ?i'5n 'a
after 49^ —On the distributive sing, ("inx, nna), see G-K. § 145 /.
30a contains two variants, of which the second is connected syntactic-

ally with ^^ Since the form of * resembles 18^^ 2^ 43^^ (all J), we may
assign this to J, and the rest of the v. to E. — 31. d;:;] Pt. rather Dp;
(juss.). —33. '?3p] KS. conj. V^N (emphatic inf. abs.). — n'.T ^n3 dj 'k] The
emendation of Hitz. (Ols. Ba.) 'n:i Tina d? '3N is hardly suitable such a
: :
sentence would require to be preceded by another action, of which it

was an aggravating or supplementary circumstance (cf. 31^^ 46^,
Nu. 16^^). It is better (with ax) to read dji, and (with OSr) to insert 'n;i
at the beginning of »*.— 36. -an] cf. 29l^ 2 Sa. 9^ (231^ ?), Jb. &^. The
— : —— —
XXVII. 28-40 373
me?— Note the word-play "n^ba : ••n3n2._37. Cf. 29^^28^ (£).

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 hastP] 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 ^**. "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 v.^^
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 IP has misled JJ and some

comm. into thinking this a replica of the blessing of Jacob
(cf. No. EB^ 1 184). Compare 40^^ with 40^^^ Ôa. live by —
thy sword] by raids on neighbouring territory, plunder of
caravans, etc.* serve thy brother] fulfilled in the long sub-
jection of Edom to Israel, from the time of David to that of
Joram (2 Ki. S^^^-), or even Ahaz (16^). 40b. The prosaic
form suggests that this may be a later addition dating from
after the emancipation of Edom (Ho. Gu.). break his yoke]
a common figure : Jer. 2^^ 5^ 28^- *• ^^ 30^, Lv. 26^^, Is. 9^ etc.
The territory of Edom is divided into two parts by the Arabah that ;
to the E is described by Strabo (xvi. iv. 21) as x^P<^ ^prj/xos ij irXeia-Tij

Kal fidKuTTa ij irpbs'lovdatq,. Modern travellers, however, speak of it as
rendering- above, * is it that ? etc., satisfies every case (see BDB, 472 a),
'
and simpler than that given in G-K. § 150^.

is Ho. (so Gu.) thinks ^^ —
a redactional expansion but it has to be considered whether ^^ (II ^â)
;
— —
is not rather a fragment of J. 38. '2H '3N* DJ '3D"i3] = 34b (j). Qn the syntax
of ':n, see G-K. 135 e.
§ 'ui n&'.\] (&^- aJ- om., but MSS and daughter- Vns.
retain, some with the addition Karavvx^^vros 5^ 'I<raa/c (pni;: D'nn.). 40. —
Vy n;n] cf. Ezk. 33I9.— nnj? (Jer. 2^\ Hos. 12I [?], Ps.'ss^ Ju. ii^?
Dt. 8',
[em.]t) probably connected with Ar. rdda, 'go to and fro (No. ZDMG, '
xxxvii. 539 f) when thou becomest restive.' ajul ^^Nn, fflr /ca^ Atjj = nnw.
:
*
* Comp. Josephus on the Idumaeans : Bopv^Qdes Kal draKTov Wvos alel re

fifTiiapov irpos to. KLvfuxara Kal /xeraôXaLS x^^po^ '^''"X. {^/f iv. 231), and
<pv(xei re (hfidraroi, (popeijeiv tyres {ib. 310). Cf. Diod. ii. 48.
— — —
374 Isaac's charge to jacob (p)
extremely fertile (Robinson, BR^ ii. 154; Palmer, Des. of Ex. u. 430 f. ;
cf. Buhl, Edomiter, 15 f.)- Buhl accordingly thinks the curse refers
only to the barren plateau W
of the Arabah and this is perhaps better ;
than (with No. Dri.) to assimilate the terms of the blessing- and the
curse.
It is probable that J's narrative contained a form of the curse on
Esau, but whether any part is preserved in ^^^' is doubtful. ^^ is certainly
from the same source as ^^ (E) with regard to ^"* the question stands
;
—
open. On the metre, see again Sievers, i. 404 f., ii. 78 f., 317. Ba.'s
denial of metrical form is based wholly on the doubtful ^^.
41-45. Esau's revenge. —41. Esau

purpose of
cherished enmity (50^^) against Jacob. the days of motiming
(50^*^)] a period of seven days, within which Esau hoped to
—
accomplish his revenge. 42. Thy brother is going to take
satisfactionof thee (Is. i^^, Ezk. 5^^) 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 bereaved of you both\ The writer has in
of separation.
view the custom of blood-revenge (cf. 2 Sa. 14^), though in
the case supposed there would be no one to execute it.
XXVII. 46-XXVIII. ^.—Isaac's Charge to facob (P).
This short section records the only action attributed to

Isaac in the Priestly Code. Two facts are taken over from
the earlier tradition (JE) : 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 intro-
duced, 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 (ch. 29) is largely
43. lV-n-13] ©
+ e^s T7?j/ Meo-oTTora/ifai'. 44 f. Dnnx] as 29^, Dn. ii^"; ct.
—
Gn. 11^. nitJTi na'N ly and aic-iy are obviously doublets, though there are
no data for assigning either to its proper source. (S runs both together :
^ws TQv 6.iT0<JTp^â.i Tov 6v/xbp Kal ttjv opyrju r. d5. <jov.
XXVII. 41-XXVIII. 9 375
discounted by this prosaic representation of the course of

events (cf. Gu. 341).
Marks of P's style are abundant n?* Sn, ^ D'nS^, *

: ; ; 'ÎNJ, ^ ; m,K }^9,
2- 8.
«• » ; nî] n-j9, 3 ; Dn;D n«, ^ I^J? "iJ?, ^- ^- ^ (J 'W;?n '3,

;
243- s^) ; D'oa Snj?, 3.
an amplification of 26^^ (Hn nnb), but attributes to

46 is
Rebekah an initiative more in the spirit of JE than of P. It

may have been supplied by R to facilitate the transition
from ch. 27 to 28 {v.t.). —XXVIII.
The language seems I.
modelled on 24^- ^^. —

The earlier
2. /^y mothei^s father\
affinity between the two families is again ignored by P see on :
2î9f.,
—
4, iJie blessing (5JS blessings ') of Ahraharn\ Comp. *
17^. Whereas in JE, Isaac is the inspired author of an

original blessing, which fixes the destiny of his descendants,
in P he simply transmits the blessing attached to the cove-
nant with Abraham. —
9. went to Ishmaet\ Not to dwell with
him permanently, but to procure a wife (see 36^^). It is

undoubtedly assumed that Ishmael was still alive (Di.), in
spite of the chronological difficulties raised by De.
XXVIII. 10-22.—Jacob at Bethel (]'E).
Qn hisjâyja-fiarraij, Jacob passes t^ night ,at_B£i:bel,

whej:e...ths_sa£redness of the 'place' is revealed ta him by- -a:,
dreajn-olji^ladderJeading from . Awaking, j
he consecrates the stone on which his head had Iain, as a'

house of God,' — at the same time naming the
*
place.Bejtlieljt'l
—and vows to dedicate a of he has, tithe all in the event of)

'
his safe return.
The objections to assigning the v. to P (Kue. KS. Di. Ho. Gu.

46.
al.)are perhaps not decisive. If be right, nn ni33 agrees inMT
substance with 26^*^-, though in 28^^* P consistently uses }i;33 '3. ^,
—
however, omits the words r-hi<-2 nn-ni3|p. 2. nns] (so ^- '^) cf. G-K. § 90 i.
—3. D'Dy hr\p] 35I1 48^ (P), Ezk. 232* 322 = D:ia poq, i;^-. In spite of ;
Dt. 33' (Di.), the phrase cannot well denote the tribes of Israel. It
seems to correspond to J's In thee shall all natiotis^' etc. (12^ etc.), and
*
probably expresses some sort of Messianic outlook. 7. icn-'jni] perhaps —

a gloss suggested by 2^^^^- (Di. al.). 9. Wok""'?«] mx om. n'pqp] ^ — —
ALQDCIO (cf. ^J) ; see on 36=*.
——
^y6 JACOB AT BETHEL (je)
Analysts. —The section consists of a complete Elohistic narrative ("*•

(i^-ie). 12. 17. 20
17-22)^ with a Yahwistic insertion For E, cf. D\n'?N, .
^^^^^
18. 22 .
dream, ^^ the tithe, ^^ and the retrospective references
^.jjg ; ; in 31^^
353- ''. For J, nin' ^^ (*»>). le i^y 3^^ 13^ ^nd the resemblances to i2»-
. ' 13"^
1
818 22^5a. 2624 3213. To
J belong, further,
^" (nnn),
genuine) ^^, and (if
though the latter is more probably interpolated.

^^* breaks the
con-
nexion of ^^ and 20, and may be taken from J ^^^ is an explanatory ;
gloss. (So nearly all recent critics.) Kuenen (C^n^. i. 145, 247) considers
^•^"^*a redactional addition to E, similar to 22^**^^ etc., on the ground
that J attributes the inauguration of the worship at Bethel to Abraham

(12^), and nowhere alludes to the theophany here recorded (so Meyer,
INS, 236^). But (to say nothing of ^^*) the parallelism of ^^ and " appears
to prove a real amalgamation of primary sources (Di.). Gu. regards ^^
as secondary, on account of its stereotyped phraseology.
10-12 (E). Jacob's dream. — ii. ke lighted upon the

place] i.e.y the *
holy- -plase^' oL Beihel (see 12^), whflse
sanctity by what followed. he took [at hap-
was reveal^gjd
hazard] 0716 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 v.^'^).permanent religious significance is expressed
Its
with profound insight and truth in Jn. i^^ angels of God]
So (in pi.) only in E (cf. 32^) in the Hex. As always in OT,
the angels are represented as wingless beings (cf. En. Ixi. i).
In V." the rendering *a certain place' would be grammatically

correct (G-K. § 126 r) but it destroys the point of the sentence, which
;
is that nigjht^vertook the patriarch just at the sacred spot (see Ex. 3').
The idea expressed by the primitive form of the legend is that the
inherent sanctity ofjhe place, and ia particular of -the jtone^ was unknown
till J_tJ53;S discovered Jby Jappb^s dream. It is very probable, as Ho.
suggests, that this points to an ancient custom of incubation at Bethel,

in which dream-oracles were sought by sleeping with the headioucontact
with the sacred stone (see Sta. G F7, i. 475 f.).
13-16 (J). The promise.

In place of the vision of the ladder, which in E constitutes the whole
revelation, J records a personal appearance of Yahwe, and an articulate
communication to the patriarch. That it was a nocturnal theopT;^ p.ny (as
in 26-'*) appears from ^â, as well as the word 3?b' in ^^ The promise
is partly addressed to Jacob's special circumstances (^^- ^°), partly a re-
II. rn^NnD] Ace. of place (lit. 'at his head-place'), as Sa. ig^s- 18
i
257. 11.
16^ J jî^ 1^6^ — j2. nam oSn'i] The usual vivid formula in relating a
——
XXVIII. IO-I7 377

newal of the blessing of Abraham Q*). The latter is not improbably a
former (see above).
later amplification of the
13. Yahi^g^ôodJiyMrn {v.t.)y and announced Himself as

one with the God of his fathers. This unity of Yahwe
amidst the multiplicity of His local manifestations is a stand-
ing paradox of the early religion of Israel cf. v.^^. /!/ie :
lnijjijiiiljêon_thou liest\ a de3cription_^..gecu.liarly aj)pro^xiate
to„tb.e solitary and hgmelesj„iugitive who Jiad-not wlisi^^^lo

layjiia.head.— 14. Comp. 131*^- 22^^^- 26^- ^* 32^3 —Qn ^^^ see
the note on 12^. — 16. Vak^w^ zsjn (kh plac^êiic.] The ^^^
Tl,
toag-feeUogJS-xxoLjojf^ (Di.)ût fear, iterance bec^se in
he had. treated the holy place as common ground ( C°^). The
exclamation doubtless preserves an echo of the local tradi-
tion, more forcibly represented in E (v.^^). It is the only
case in Gen. where a theophany occasions surprise (cf.
Ex. 3^).
17-19. Consecration and naming of the place. — 17

follows v.^^ (E) without sensible breach of continuity ; even
the mention of Jacob's awaking (^^) is not absolutely indis-
pensable (see ^^). The impression of fear is far more power-
fully expressed than in J ; the place is no ordinary haram^

but one superlatively holy, the most sacred spot on earth.
Only a N 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 BHh-el, which
(as we see from v.^^) was first applied to the sacred stone, but was after-
wards 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
itwere the entrance to the true heavenly temple, with which it com-
municated by means of a ladder. We may compare the Babylonian
theory of the temple-tower as the means of ascent to the dwelling-place
dream: 37^ ((&) ^ 40^ 41MU. 7^^^ Is. 298.— 13. v^y 3X3] 182 24^^ ^51 (all J).
®rU,S take D^p as antecedent to the suff. but the idea would have been ;
expressed otherwise (i*? '?3,?ep), and the translation loses all its plausibility
when the composition of documents is recognised. Before le^v^r^^ <&. ins. —
/iTj 0oj3oi;. — 14. pxn nD^D] ojs ^ (l;U/xos Tri% daXdaa-rjs,
fflr after 32^341^9. — n:in£3i]
ps^ for
aSc :
—
the word properly break through *
' [bounds], — cf. 30^* ^^,
Ex. i^S Is. 543 etc. —15. '?3a] (!& + Tinin.

— ;
2,7^ JACOB AT BETHEL (je)
of the gods in heaven (see p. 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, Hdhk. 96). Whether it has any

*
'
connexion with the sillu, or decorated arch over a palace gate, depicted
in AT
LOP- 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 Beitln (** 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 ^ iioff.).
18. Jacob set up the stone, whose mystic properties he

had discovered, as a mazzebahy or sacred pillar {y,i.\ and
poured oil on the top of it (35^*), in accordance with a custom
widely attested in ancient and modern times (see p. 380).- -
19a gives J's account of the naming of the place. If a similar

notice occurred in E (as seems implied in 31^^ 35^)) it would
naturally have stood later. 19b is usually considered a gloss.
From Jos. 16^ (18^^) it appears that Luz was really distinct
from Bethel, but was overshadowed by the more famous
sanctuary in the neighbourhood.
20-22 (E). Jacob's vow. — The vow in OT **
consists
18. n^vD] (' thing set up; Ar. nush, Ph. nasD) is the technical name
of the sacred monolith which was apparently an adjunct of every fully
equipped Canaanite (or Phoenician) 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 E {^^^ *^' "• " 3320 [-em.] 35", Ex. 24*)
but not by J, who never mentions the object except in connexion with
Canaanitish worship (Ex. 34^^). But that the emblem retained its
idolatrous associations in the popular religion is shown by the strenuous
polemic of the prophets and the Dtnic. legislation against it (Hos. lo^^*,
Mic. 5^-, Dt. 12^ etc., esp. 16^ [cf. Lv. 26^]); and J'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
19I9).
(Is. See Dri. on Dt. i62"- I^S^, 204 ff., 456 f. Moore in EB,
; ;
2974 ff. ; —
Whitehouse in Z)^, iii. 879 ff. pxn] On this, the usual form, see
G-K. § 71.— 19. d'?ini] a strong adversative, found in Pent, only 48^',
— — —
XXVIII. i8-22 379
essentially of a solemn promise to render God some service,

"
in the event of some particular prayer or wish being granted
(Dri.) ; * hence it falls into two parts a condition {^^^•), and :
—
a promise p). 20, 2ia. The conditions correspond with the
divine promise in ^^ (J) (a) the presence of God {b) protec- ;
tion ;
{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 2lb, v.i. —22. The promise.
this stone . . . shall be (ffi 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
W2is first the residence of the numen, and afterwards became
a ma^zebah. 22b. He pay a tithe of all his possessions.
will
This and Am. 4* are the only pre-Deuteronomic references
to the tithe (cf. 1420).
In its present setting the above narrative forms the transition link
between the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban cycle of legends. In sub-
stance it is, we can hardly doubt, a modification of the cultus-legend of
Bethel (now Beittn, situated on an eminence about 10 miles N of Jeru-
salem, a little E of the road to Nabulus), the founding of which was
ascribed to the patriarch Jacob. The concrete features which point to
—
a local origin the erection of the mazzebah, the ladder, the gate of
—
heaven, and the institution of the tithe are all indeed peculiar to the
account of E, which obviously stands nearer to the sources of the native
tradition than the stereotyped form of the theophany given by J. From
E we learn that the immemorial sanctity of Bethel was concentrated in
the sacred stone which was itself the original Bith-el, i.e. the residence
of a god or spirit. This belief appears to go back to the primitive stone-
9I8,
Ex. Nu. 1421. For nS 'iki, <& has Kal Ol/Xaufxaiis ; cf. Ju. iS^^ ((5).— nS]
35^ 48^, Jos. 16^ 18^', Ju. i^f. The name appears to have been
Aoi'^ct
known Euseb. {OS, 135^)

in the time of ; and Mviller (AE, 165) thinks it
may be on Eg. inscr.
identical with Iûsa
21. Tiatyi] ffi Kal diroaTpi'^xi /*^> ^s v.^°. 2lb can with difficulty be
assigned either to the protasis or to the apodosis of the sentence. The
word m.T shows that it does not belong to E and in all probability the ;
cl. is to be omitted as a gloss (Di. al.). The apod, then has the same
unusual form as in 22^
* But We. {Heid.^ 190) remarks of the Arabian custom : " Die Araber
geloben nicht in eventum wenn der und der Fall eintritt, so will ich das
:
tun sondem sie iibemehmen durch das Geliibde eine absolut bindende
;
Pflicht."
— f
380 Jacob's marriage (je)
worship of which traces are very widely diffused over the surface of the
g"lobe.* The characteristic rite of anointing- the stone, originally perhaps
a sacrifice to the indweUing numen, was famiUar to classical writers.
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
:
was forgotten. Though the monolith

long- after its orig-inal significance
of Bethel is not elsewhere expUcitly referred to in OT, we may assume
that, stripped of its pagan associations and reduced to the rank of a
mazzebdh, it was still recognised in historic times as the chief religious
symbol of that great centre of Hebrew worship.
XXIX. 1-30. Jacob's Marriage with LaharCs Daughters

UE, P).
Instead of spending a few days (27**) as Laban's guest,

Jacob was destined to pass 20 years of his life with his
Aramaean 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
{^~^^), and the peculiar conditions of his marriage to Leah
* See Tylor, Prim. Cult.^ ii. 160 fF. Frazer, Pausan. iv. 154 f., Adonis,
;
21; PS^, 204 ff., 232 f. The wide distribution of these sacred objects
seems fatal to the theory of Lagrange, that they were miniature repro-
ductions 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 {Aiiides^, 192 ff.).
t On anointed stones (Xidoi XnrapoL, aXrjXijxfiivoi, lapides uncti, luhri-
catif etc.), see Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 4, 26; and the remarkable state-
ments of Theophrastus, Char. 16 Lucian, Alexander, 30; and Arnobius,
;
— —
Adv. Genies, i. 39, quoted by Frazer, Pausan. v. 354. For Assyrio-
logical parallels see KIB, i. 44 f., ii. 113, 151, 261. —
A curious develop-
ment of the ancient belief appears in the name Ba/ri;Xos, BairuXtoj/, 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 ''Eus.
PrcBp. Ev. i. 10, 18; Photius, Bihl. [Migne, ciii. 1292 f.] ;Pliny, HN,
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 {KA T^, 437 f. ;
Lagrange, I.e. 196). Since BairvKos is also the name of a god in Philo-
Byblius, seems unreasonable to doubt the etymological and material
it
connexion between the ancient Semitic Sx'n'a and the portable betyl of
the Grffico-Roman period, which was so named as the residence of a
spirit; but see the important article of Moore, Journal of the Archceo-
logical Institute of America, vii. (1903), No. 2, p. i98ff.
— ——
XXIX. I, 2 381
and Rachel (^^~^^). The first, a purely idyllic scene reminding

us of 24^^"^^ and Ex. 2^^'^^, 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.* In the second, the true character of Laban is ex-
posed 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.
Analysis. —
Fragments of P's narrative can be easily recognised in
yy 24. 29^ g^nd probaWy also in '^^. The separation of J and E 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 Di. that v.^ belongs to E
(see the notes), and ^-i-*
to J : cf. m-\ph pn, ^^ (182 24") ; ne-ai 'Dîy, !•*
{2^).
In Rachel appears to be introduced for the first time hence Di.
^^^-
;
regards E as the main source of ^^ (or ^^^) "^*^, excluding, however, v.^,
where nyj;:^ and n"j'3? reveal the hand of J characteristic expressions of :
E are m3&"D, ^^ (î^-""); nVnj and r\it:p, 16. is ',3^ ^j^î ns', i^. So Gu. Pro.
.
nearly. Ball and Corn, assign all from ^^ onwards to J.
1-14. Jacob's meeting with Rachel. — i. the sons of the

East] Since the goal of Jacob's journey is in J, Harran (28^^
29*) and in P, Paddan Aram (28^), it is to be presumed that
this third variation comes from E (Di.). Now the DTP ''33 are
everywhere else the tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, and
2j2ifiE.
certainly suggests that Laban's home was not so
distant from Canaan as Harran (see on 241^'- [city of Nahor]).
It is possible, therefore, that in the tradition followed by E,
Laban was the representative of the nomadic Aramaeans
between Palestine and the Euphrates (see p. 334 above).
2. The well in the open country is evidently distinct, even in
J, from the town- well of Harran (cf. 24^^). For . . . they
used to water, etc.] To the end of v.^ is an explanatory par-
enthesis describing the ordinary procedure. The custom of
covering the well with a heavy stone is referred to by
I. The lifted up his feet is found only here.

curious expression *
'
aSt'B om.and (& adds to the v. irpbs Aaâv /crX., as 28^^ 2. n'?nj pxni
'23 ; —
can only mean and the stone was great
* it is perhaps better to omit ' :
* ^ thinks it necessary to introduce a hint of the coming rivalry into

the conversation between Jacob and Rachel (v.^^).
— ;
Robinson, BR^
490; Thomson, LB^ 589; Palmer, Des. of
i.
Ex. ii. 319 f. ;ii. 48, xix. 94.

cf. also Diod.
4. Jacob accosts —
the shepherds, and learns that they come.from Harran, There
is nothing else in the narrative to suggest the proximity of
a great city ; Laban is no city-dweller as in ch. 24, but a

nomad sheikh ;and the life depicted is everywhere that of
the desert. All this confirms the impression that the topo-
graphy of E (v.^) has been modified by J in accordance with
the theory that Harran was the city of Nahor. 5. the son of —
Nahdr\ see on 24^^.
—
Jacob is puzzled by the leisurely
7) 8*
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] —
cf. Ex. 2^^. The trait is in accordance with the freedom still
allowed to unmarried girls among the Bedouin. Burck. found
it an established rule among the Arabs of Sinai that only girls
should drive the cattle to pasture (Bedouin^ 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 (Di. Gu. al.): cf. 32^6. n. wept aloud] —
'after the demonstrative fashion of the Oriental' (Ben.),
tears of joy at the happy termination of his journey. — 12.
brother] as in v.^^ 13^ 14^* (24*^?). — 13. kissed hifti repeatedly
(Piel)] The effusive display of affection, perhaps not wholly
disinterested, is characteristic of Laban (cf. 242^^-). — 14. my
hone and my flesh] as 37^^, Ju. 9^, 2 Sa. 5^ \<^^^', It is an
absurd suggestion that the exclamation is called forth by the
recital of Jacob's dealings with Esau, in which Laban recog-
nised a spiritual affinity to himself! The phrase denotes
literal consanguinity and nothing more.
the art. (with ux). — 3. nmyn] jot o'ynn, needlessly substituted by Ba. So
also v.", where au, is supported by <&.. —
6. Before nam, f& ins. ^tl aiVoO
XaXoGi'Tos (as v.'). An assimilating- tendency reappears at the end of the

V. ; and the variations have no critical value. — 9. .1x3] perf. ; ct. the
ptcp. nSa in v.^. — Nin nyn] ffi + rd irpdâra rov 7rarp6? avTTJs. — 10. with
*?J'1]
original * in impf. Qal (G-K. § 67^).— 13. yDt? ((& Oiff) = * the report con-
cerning,' followed as always by g-en. obj. — 14. D*D' vm] * a whole month '
see G-K. § 131 fl?.

—
XXIX. 3-25 3^3
15-30. Jacob's double marriage.— 15. Laban's char-

acter 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 vv.^*- ^6). His apparently
generous offer proves a well-laid trap for Jacob, whose love
for Rachel has not escaped the notice of his shrewd kinsman.
— l6-l8a. An explanatory parenthesis. The manner in
which Rachel is introduced, as if for the first time, is thought
tomark the transition to another source (Di. al.). On the —
names Leah and Rcihel^ v.i. 17. Leah's eyes were weak —
(ni3"i, ^ dcrêvct?, Aq. 5. aTrakoi) : i.e. they lacked the lustrous
brilliancy which is counted a feature of female beauty in the
East. l8b. Jacob, not being in a position to pay the purchase
price [mohar] for so eligible a bride, offered seven years'
service instead. The custom was recognised by the ancient
Arabs, and is still met with (We. GGN, 1893, 433 f. ; Burck.
Syria^ 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 (Burck. Bedouin^ i. 113, 272; Lane,

Mod. Eg.^ i. 199). —
22. Laban proceeds to the execution of
his long meditated coup. He himself arranges the marriage
feast (ct. Ju. 14^^), inviting all the men of the place^ with
a view doubtless to his self-exculpation (v. 2^). —
23. The sub-
stitution of Rachel was rendered possible by the
Leah for
custom of bringing the bride to the bridegroom veiled (24^).
To have thus got rid of the unprepossessing Leah for a hand-
some price, and to retain his nephew's services for other
seven years (v. 2'''), was a master-stroke of policy in the eyes
of a man like Laban. —25. Jacob's surprise and indignation
15. '3n] see on 27=*^. — n-i3ô] 3i7-*^(E), Ru. 2^2 1. ^^-^ jg common to J
(30^* ^^•) and E (31^, Ex. 2®). — 16. '?na and are in such connexions
|Dp
characteristic of E (v.^^42'^- ^^* ^^- ^^•^'*)
; see Ho. Einl. 104. Snn means —
*ewe' (Ar. ra^»7= she-lamb) hence by analogy hn^ has been explained
;
by Ar. la at, bovine antelope (see No. ZDMG, xl. 167 Sta. ZATW, i.
'
' ;
1 12 ff.), and the names are cited as evidence of a primitive Heb. totemism
{KAPy 254 f. ). Others prefer the derivation from Ass. It at, lady (see * '
Haupt, GGN, 1883, 100).— 18. Vmn] ^ p ret ii {G-K. § ii9/>); so 20- ^s. —20.
—
nnN vn'i] <&^ om. —
21. .lan] Milra before n(G-K.§ 690). 24. nnisty] better —
are vividly depicted. —26. It is not so done] cf. 34^, 2 Sa. 13^^^
Laban no doubt usage the objec-
correctly states the local :
tion to giving a younger daughter before an older is natural,

and prevails in certain countries (Lane, i. 201 oi.Jub. xxviii,, ;
Ju. 15^^-, I Sa. 18^^). —27, 28. Fulfil the week of this one]
i.e., the usual seven days (Ju. 14^2^ To. 11^^) 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 (31^*^), he suffered a just retribution for the unscrupu-
lous 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 (Rob. Sm. KM'^, 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 mohar otherwise than in the way of
personal service. As soon as the contract expired he pleads his right
to provide for his own house (30^ J).
*
On the other hand, Laban cer-
'
tainly claimed the right to detain his daughters, and treated them as
still members of his family (31^* ^^ E) and it might be imagined that the
;
Elohistic tradition recognised the existence of beena marriage, at least

among the Aramaeans. 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.
XXIX. 31-XXX. 2^.— The Birth ofJacob's Children (JE).
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 remark-
'v) —
{"x^^); see y.^. 26. nTystn] distinctive of J see v.^^. 27. njmi is ; —
rather 3rd f. s. pf. Niph., than ist pi. cohort. Qal (as most). ixx(&S>'S
—
read \m]. 28b. ntj-x"? ^h] The double dative is characteristic of P, to
whom the whole clause may be assigned along with -^. 30. The second —
Da has no sense, and should probably be deleted (ffiH).
—
XXIX. 26-31 3^5
able 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 JE.) How far
genuine elements of tradition are embodied in such a narra-
tive 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 thenames of Leah and Rachel, repre-
senting perhaps an older and a later settlement of Hebrews
in Palestine (Sta. ZATW, 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,

ZATW, xxi. 36flf. ; cf. Mey. INS, 291 f., 509 ff.)
The sources are J and E, with occasional clauses from P. 2g^^'^^ is

wholly from J (m-T, si- 32. 83. 35 .^^^^^^ 31 cygn, 34. 35)^ ^^th the possible excep-
. .
lion of ^^"^y — 30^-8 is mainly E (d'h^n, 2. 6. 8 ,-,,p^^ 3a)

^* is assigned to P {r\n^v and cf. 16^), and in
jût ^^^ reminds us of
. .
J {\6% nri??' must be either

"^
from J (KS. Ba. Gu.) or P (Ho.). —

30^"^^ is again mostly from
J (nnr?',
10. 12.
cf.
9a
îj-jj 2931 30' 2(f^). ^^ is P.
—
30^^-^ presents a very mixed
text,
whose elements are difficult to disentangle note the double etymologies ;
in 18. (cf. 16)20. 23f. The hand of E clearly appears in "a- is. 20aa/3. 22ba. (22a
may be from P cf. 8^) 23. Hence the parallels ^*-'^^- 20^- 24 must be as-
:
signed to J, who is further characterised, according to Gu., by the

numeration of the sons (^'^- ^^' 2°*y). 21 jg interpolated.
31-35. The sons of Leah.— 31. ?iated] The' rendering

is too strong. HNîb' is almost a technical term for the less
favoured of two wives (Dt. 21^^^-) where the two are sisters ;
the rivalry is naturally most acute, hence this practice is

forbidden by the later law (Lv. iS^^). The belief that Yahwe
takes the part of the unfortunate wife and rewards her with
children, belongs to the strongly marked family religion of
25
—
386 Jacob's children (je)
Israel (i Sa. i2ff.)._32. Re'uben] The only plausible ex-

planation of the etymolog-y is that it is based on the form
bî«-i (t^.z.) =^yn-^Ni, and that mn^ is substituted for the
divine name 75??. Most comm. suppose that the writer
resolves piNl into [''']f[V]? [^]^1 \ but that is too extrava-
gant for even a Heb. etymologist. Simdn] derived from — 33.
yOK^, 'hear,' expressing precisely the same idea as Re'uben,
— 34. Leviy as the third son, is explained by a verb for

* adhere' (Niph. a^ rvh), on the principle that a threefold
cord is not easily broken. 35. Vehudah] connected with a —
word meaning 'praise' (n'jin cf. impf. iT]^'"!), Neh. 11^'^). :
So in 49^.
XXX. 1-8. Rachel's adopted sons.— i, 2. A passionate
scene, showing how Rachel was driven by jealousy of her
sister to yield her place to her maid. Her petulant be-
haviour recalls that of Sarah (16^), but Jacob is less patient
than Abraham. Am I in God's stead?] So 50^^, cf. 2 Ki. 5^.
— 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.
seeSta. ZATW, vi. i43ff. Ho, 196; Dri.

On the ceremony referred to, ;
274. traced to a widespread custom, according to which, in

Its origin is
lawful marriage, the child is actually brought forth on the father's knees
(cf Jb. 3^2. // jx. 455 f. ; Od. xix. 401 ff.); then it became a symbol of
32. jn^N-)] (JEr "ôv^rjv, etc. ; <S W » '-^ni ; Jos. 'Vov^tjKos. The origin of
thename has given rise to an extraordinary number of conjectures (see
Hogg, EB, 4091 fF.). We seem driven to the conclusion that the original
form (that on which the etymology is based: v.s.) was '?aiNn. In that
form the name has been connected with Ar. ri'bdl, Mion,' or* wolf,' in
which case Reuben might have to be added to the possibly totemistic
names of OT. Another plausible suggestion is that the word is softened
from ^Wiyi a theophorous compound after the analogy of "^xiy; 33. —
After 13, (& ins. 'JK', which may be correct (cf 3o'^- ^2- n- 19- 24) jiyp?'] _
Another supposed animal name, from Ar. sim a cross between the wolf ,
and hyaena (see Rob. Sm. JPh. ix. 80). Ewald regarded it as a diminu-
tive of "^NyD-^:, and similarly recently Cheyne {TBI, 375). 34. tr\p\ —
JuuffiL^ nxip^; (&A iKkiidtj.—'^h] We.'s conjecture that this is the gentilic
of r^v^h is widely accepted (Sta. Rob.-Sm. No. Mey. al.) Homm., on
the other hand, compares S Arab. laviu= 'priest,' Levi being the
priestly tribe {AHT, 278 f. cf. Benz. Arch.^ 56).
;
3. nin^?] (of unknown etymology) is probably to be connected with

— — '
XXIX. 32-XXX. II 387

the legitimisation of a natural child, and finally a form of adoption
generally (50^^). Gu., however, thinks the rite orig-inated in cases like
the present (the slave being delivered on the knees of her mistress), and
was afterwards transferred to male adoption.
obtain children by her] see on 16^. —
6. The putative mother
names the adopted child. Dan] The etymolog-y here given

iV ^"""^J *j^<^g^') is very probably correct, the form being an
abbreviated theophorous name (cf. Abi-dan, Ass. Asshur-
dany etc.). — 8. wrestlings of God I have wrestled] The words
are very obscure (see Che. 376 ff.). Either '
I have had *' a
veritable God's bout" (Ba.) with my sister,' or (less probably)
* have wrestled with God (in prayer) like my sister.' and
I
have overcome] This seems to imply that Leah had only one
son at the time (Gu.) and there is nothing to prevent the
;
supposition that the concubinage of Bilhah followed immedi-

ately on the birth of Reuben.
9-13. Leah's adopted sons.— II. Gad\s, the name of an
Aramaean and Phoenician god of Luck (Tv;(r;), mentioned in
Is. 65^^ (see Camb, Bible^ ad loc. cf. Baethgen, Beitr. 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 appella-

tively: With luck! (v.i.). It is probable, however, that at
an earlier time it was current in the sense *
With Gad's help
'
the yorite clan|nS3 (3627).—6. '|J"j] On the form, see G-K. § 26g:—yaph
must be assigned to J, on account of nnsty and 'jb' p (note also the
expression of subj. after second vb.). 8. ""înDj] cLtt. Xey. —
The vb. has
nowhere else the sense of 'wrestle,' but means primarily to 'twist' (cf.
Pr. 8^ Jb. 5^^ Ps. iS^^t) hence '^ri?J might be the 'tortuous,' 'cunning'
;
one (BDB). But a more plausible etymology derives it from a hypo-

thetical Naphtal (from ns2 [Jos. i7"tj —
if correctly vocalised], usually
taken to mean height cf. '?9^3 fr. Dn|), denoting the northern high-
'
' :
lands W
of the Upper Jordan (Mey. INS, 539). The Vns. render the v. —
more or less paraphrastically, and give no help to the elucidation of the
sense.
10. Both here and gives a much fuller text.
v.^^ ffi ii. na?] So Keth.y —
(& 'Ey Ti5x?7, IS Feliciter. But Qr& n^J K3 is ancient, being presupposed
by S (.j,..^. jZ|) and C*^J. These Vns. render 'Good fortune comes'
(so Ra) : another translation, suggested by 49^', is ' A troop (nna) comes
(lEz.).
—— :
388 Jacob's children (je)
(Ba. Gu.). — 13. The name 'Zif^;' naturally suggested to Heb.

writers a word for happiness ; hence the two etymologies
"•"liJ'iSn, ^
In my happiness^ and '•^l^B'K '(women) count me
happy.' It is possible that the name is historically related to
the Canaanite goddess Âserah (Ba. Ho.), as Gad is to the
Aramaean deity. Aser appears in Eg. monuments as the
name of a district in Palestine NW as early as Seti and
Ramses 11. (Miiller, AE^ 236 ff.).
14-24. The later children.— 14-16. The incident of the
love-apples is a piece of folklore, adopted with reserve by
the writer and so curtailed as to be shorn of its original
(J),
significance. story must have gone on to tell how
The
Rachel partook of the fruit and in consequence became
pregnant, while Leah also conceived through the restoration
of her marriage rights (see We. Comp.^ 38 f.). How much
of this stood in J 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. D'X'l'n {vA.) is the

round, greenish-yellow, plum-like fruit oimandragora vemalis^
which May the days of wheat harvest and
in Syria ripens in —
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 (cf.
2 Ki. 4^^). 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 ("^^V, Ex. 21^^). — 16.
/ have hired thee i^Vpd^ "'bb')] Obviously an anticipation of
13. -i?'n is Stt. Xey. — -jn^x] pf. of confidence (G-K. § 106 «). It is
to be noted that pfs. greatly preponderate in E's etymologies, and impfs.
in those of J ; the two exceptions (29^-^-) may be only apparent, and due
to the absence of definite stylistic criteria.
14. D'x-in (Ca. i^^\)\ fflr /i^Xa fiav5pay6pov, <S ] »->n j«-^ .
^
C^J pnnn'
( = Ar. yabrilh^ explained to be the root of the plant). The sing-, is
nn, from the same sj as nn, lover,' and onn, love and very probably
* * ' ;
associated with the love-god r\-vr\ (Me§a, 1. 12). Cheyne plausibly

suggests (379) that this deity was worshipped by the Reubenites hence ;
Reuben is the finder of the apples. — 15. n^] (&. hn'?, % r\vh rh. — nnp)i
(inf.)] Dri. T. § 204 ; but ^npî (pf. would be easier. 16. NUJ?] juudK
f.) —
+ 'i^;^'!i. — N''"! 'i^;^5] see on 19^. 17a is from E but 17b probably from
;
— — —
XXX. 13-24 3^9
J's etymology of Issachar. 18. E*s interpretation of

lost —
"I3b'tp),which is, of course, independent of the story of the
mandrakes. The name is resolved either into "^3^ ^î<, man <
of hire,' or into "'3K' K^% there is a reward (Tu. Di.)

'
or else '
;
the and quiescent ^ are simply dropped (Gu.)

^
v.i. 20. : —
Two etymologies of Zehulun\ the first from E (dm^j^), and
the second, therefore, from J both are somewhat obscure :
{y.i.). —
21. DinaK\ The absence of an etymology, and the
fact that Dinah is excluded from the enumeration of 32^^,
make it probable that the v. is interpolated with a view to
ch. 34. 22-24. At last Rachel bears a son, long hoped for
and therefore marked out for a brilliant destiny Yoseph. —
23b, 24b. E derives the name from ^DN, < take away ' ; J
more naturally from ^PJ,
<
add *
: May Yahwe add to me
another son f
XXX. 25-43. Jacob enriched at Laban's Expense (JE).
Jacob, having accomplished his 14 years of service for

his wives, is now in a position to dictate terms to Laban,
J, on account of the numeral. — i8a/3, while correctly expressing- the

idea of E, contains the word nn??', which E avoids and is therefore
;
probably redactional.— l8b. i^b'B':] So Ben Asher regularly, with Qr§

perp. I3B': B. Naphtali has i?';^'^ :, or na^^: (see Baer-Del. Gen. 84 f.
:
;
Ginsburg, Introd. 250 fF.). The duplication of the w cannot be dis-

posed of as a Massoretic caprice, and is most naturally explained by
the assumption that two components were recognised, of which the
first was e^'n (We. TBS, p. v). For the second component We. refers
to the "13'^ of I Ch. 11^^ 26^; Ba. compares an Eg. deity Sokar while ;
Mey. {INS, 536) is satisfied with the interpretation 'man of hire,'

corresponding to the description of the tribe in Gn. 49^'*'*. 20. nai, 'ann?] —
The sj (except in proper names) is not found in OT, but is explained by
Aram. (cf. fr^l> 'dowry'), and is common in Palm. prop, names (BDB,
S.V.). The interchange *?
and
probably dialectic (cf. dacrima
of n is
— lacrima), and hardly justifies Cheyne's view that the name in the
writer's mind was \rq\ [I.e. 380).
—
'•jSnr] Another air. \ey. apparently
connected with '?3|, poet, for abode Vns. dwell with (as EVV).
'
' :
*
'
This gives a good enough sense here, and is perhaps supported by 49^*
(see on the v.) but J^î remains without any natural explanation. See
;
Hog-g, in EB, 5385 Mey. (538) derives it from the personal name Vnj
flf.
(Ju. 928). —
21 end] (& + m"?,:) nayni (as 29^^). 24. ^^tv] Probably a con- —
traction of "^N-iov, though the Ysfr of the list of Thothmes ill. (No. 78)
390 JACOB OUTWITS LABAN (je)
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 thetwo men with their
bearing in Jacob here shows a decision of purpose
29^^^-
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 ;
when he discovers how completely he has been

mortified (31^)
deceived by Jacob's apparent moderation. The story, as Gu. —
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 some- ;
what unintelligible form in which the narrative stands.

Sources. — In the earlier w, {^-^^) several duplicates show the com-
position of J and E :
26 n 26a . 26b » 29a . 28 n su .
^^.^ i^ 27 and ^s
nyT nnw, 2«b
;
and 29a.
Here ^' 27.^re from J (ni.T, 27. so jn n^d, 27 ^V:?, 27)^ and ^- ^
29-31 . .
—
from E, each narrative being nearly complete (cf. Di. Gu. Pro.). In —
32-36
\^ jg quite possible, in spite of the scepticism of Di. and others, to
distinguish two conceptions of Jacob's reward (We. Comp.'^ i\o?i.). (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 {^^). 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 (^).

This account belongs to E (cf "l.'^V, ^2, with ^s), though it is doubtful if to
the same stratum of E as 3i'"^2. (j) 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 (^â^ [from ncn] ^'•). Thus Jacob
receives for the present nothing at all (^* J). 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 {^^) ;
Laban's precautions aim at securing that these shall be few or none.

Hence we obtain for J and for E ssa^.ss.se^ jg the 32aa5b. 33. 34 _ 37-45
natural continuation of J's account, but with numerous insertions, which

may be either from variants or glosses. The text here is very confused, —
and ffir has many variations.
is less confidently identified with Joseph than the companion Y'kb'r
with Jacob (cf. p. 360 above Mey. INS, 262 Spiegelberg, Rand-
; ;
glossen, 13 f Miiller, MVAG, 1907,1. 23, a.nd JBL, 1909, 31).

; But
Ydkupili has been found in contract tablets of the Hammurabi period
along with Yakub-ili (Homm. AHT, 96 [from Sayce]).
— — — —— '
XXX. 25-32 391
25-31. Jacob proposes to provide for his own house.

—A preliminary parley, in which both parties feel their way
to an understanding. — 26 (E). thou knowest with what kind
of service y etc.] E always lays stress on Jacob's rectitude (cf.
^). —27 (J). If I have found favour^ etc.] followed by aposio-

pesis, as 18^ 23^^. — Laban continues / have taken omens
:
(^nrm ; cf. 44^- 15, I Ki. 2o33) and (found that) Yah-we has
blessed me, etc.] — an abject plea for Jacob's remaining with
him. — 28 (E). Laban surrenders at once (the answer is in
v.^2), whereas 29, 30 in J, Jacob presses for a dis-
charge : his service has been of immense value to Laban,
but he has a family to consider. 31. anything at all] See
introd. note above. this thing] which I am about to men-
tion. resume herding thy flock] G-K. § 120^.
32-36. The new contract. —The point in both narratives
is that parti-coloured animals form a very small proportion of
a sheep being nearly all white (Ca. 4^ 6^, Dn.
flock, the Syrian
7^) and the goats black or brown (Ca. 4^^). In E, 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
26. n'p'-riNi] Not necessarily a g-loss ; the children might fairly be con-
sidered included in Jacob's wages. — 27. —
On e^nj, v. 44^ l'?'?J3] (& ry a-g
elcrodif}, Arm. in pede /wo = iVjn'?
(ô).
— 28. fflrU om. nDNî, smoothing over
the transition from J to E.— napj] 'designate' (lit. 'prick [off] ') : cf. the
use of Niph. in Nu. 1", i Ch. 16*^ etc. 29. he'n m\ 'the manner in —
which' (G-K. § 157c); but ^ reads as in v.^^. 30. •''?n'?] contrasted —
with '33*? above. Prosperity has followed Jacob 'wherever he went'
(cf Is. 412, Jb. 18" etc.). It is unnecessary to emend '"pj*^? (^C^,
Che.). —31. nor'K] {(&% pr. 1) must be deleted on account of Its awkward
position.
32. n3j;N, ton] To get rid of the change of person (and the division of
sources) many construe the latter as inf. abs. (' removing ') but the only ;
natural rendering is impve. (cf. ^).. CIr has impve. both times. — — nc-^j]
a'ly
f&. wdv TTpoârov (paibv iv tols dpvA<ny Kal Tray didpaPTov /cat \evK6v iv rats
9.l^Lvy a smoother and therefore less original text. The Heb. seems
overloaded Gu. strikes out D'3^?3 D?n-nB'-'?3i, and the corresponding ell.
;
in 33. 35^ — n,iâT -ipj] speckled and spotted,' parti-coloured.' The words
< '
are practically synonymous, both being distinct from np;; ^35.39.40 ^jS.
10. 12
f )^ which means striped. If there be a difference, '3 {^' 3» 3 1^- 10. 12
' '
1)
suggests smaller spots than 'd (cf. Ezk. 16^^, Jos. 9^, the only places
where the ^ occurs outside this pass.). VAn\ only in this chap. = black : '
—— — — —
392 JACOB OUTWITS LABAN (je)
the difference between J and E. 33. my righteousness shall

testify against me] i.e.) the proposal is so transparently fair
that Jacob will be as were automatically convicted of theft
it
if he violates the compact.

•^fJlV, unimpeachable conduct,' '
here means fair dealing,' honesty.* in time to come] when-

* *
ever Laban chooses to make an investigation. 35, 36 (J). —

And he (Laban, see ^2*^) 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 hence-

forth be born amongst those now entrusted to Jacob.
white] Heb. Idbdn^ perhaps a play on Laban's name.
37-43. Jacob's stratagem. —The main account is from
J, 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, J's ac-
or *
—
dark-brown.' 33. 3 njy] 'testify against' (see i Sa. i2^ 2 Sa. I^^ Is.
3^). An easier sense would be obtained if we could translate * witness for,'
but there seem to be no examples of that usage. Dri.'s interpretation :
'there will be nothing whatever to allege against my honesty,' seems,

—
on the other hand, too subtle. "inD ora] in time to come' (Ex. 13", *
Dt. 6^"). If we could insist on the literal rendering on the morrow,' *
the proof of divergence between J and E would be strengthened, but

the sense is less suitable. y^th —
o] (& ^tl iarlv 6 /jLiadds fiov ipdjiriSv
(Tov. —
36. 13'3] Mx(& uyi. — jiu follows ^ with a long addition based on
31U-13.
37. nja*? (Ho 4^^ t)] the * white tree ; according to some, populus alba
'
(Di. al.), but very probably sty rax officinalis (Ar. luhnay, so called from its
exuding a milk-X<ke. gum), (Ges. De. Dri. — "V - Aram. 'almond
al.). f] Nn*?,
irmeAnii). — Instead of
— pDny (Ezk. 2^^ platanus orientalis {Ass.
tree.' \)'\
the last three words ^ has 5k iwl rats pd^dots rb \evKbv

i(f)aLveTO i\4inaev 5
—a very sensible comment, but hardly original. The whole

ttolk'lKov,
clause '(with) a laying bare (G-K. § 117 r) of the white on the rods,' is
superfluous, and certainly looks like a variant. jna] pi. ; hpr:^ being coll.
—
—38 ff. text of J, as sifted by We., commends itself by its lucidity
The
and continuity. It is impossible to tell whether the interpolated words
are variants from another source (E?) or explanatory glosses. 38. —
en-i (v.^SEx. 2^^t)] either 'trough,' fr. Ar. rahata, 'be collected,' or
* runnel,' from Aram. »m = }'n (see No. ZA, xii. 187).— mnp^t?] const, pi. of
riiW, 242" f. — —
The words mnts''? mnpB'a divorce }Nsn x\^-h from its connexion,
and must be omitted from the text of J. ffi appears to have changed
XXX. 33-42 393
count reads : And he placed the rods which he had peeled in

the runnels . . . in front of the fiock^ 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 (Dri.),
and was acted on by ancient cattle breeders (see the list of authorities
in Bochart, Hieroz. ii. c. 49 and cf. Jer. Qucest. adloc). The full repre-
;
sentation seems to be that the ewes saw the reflexion of the rams in the
water, blended with the imag"e of the parti-coloured rods, and were de-
ceived into thinking they were coupled with parti-coloured males (Jer.,
We. Comp.^ 41).
40. And lambs facob set apart

{these) and made . . .
separate flocks for himself^ and did not add them to Laban's
stock (We.). —
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 The consequence
{y.i.). is that
Jacob's stock is hardy and Laban's delicate.
XXXI. i-XXXII. \.—Jacob's Flight from Laban: their

friendly Parting (J, E).
Jacob perceives from the altered demeanour of Laban

and his sons that he has outstayed his welcome (^' 2) and, ;
after consultation with his wives, resolves on a secret flight

p-21). Laban pursues, and overtakes him at Mt. Gilead (22-25
j^
where, after a fierce altercation (^^~*^), they enter into a treaty
njDn'l JNsn to nT'?pDn, rendering thus (^^*') IVa ws hv ^Xduicriv ra TrpSâra irielv,
ivibinop tQv pd^SiiJv [Kai] iXdbvTwv avrcov els t6 vieTv, ivKKTCTTâojaLv (^^) to. ttoo-
/Sara. —
nionn] On the unusual pref. of 3 f. pi., see G-K. § 47 k. 39a is a —
—
doublet to the last three words of ^^ iDn'i] ib. § 69/"; juu. njon'i. 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 J,
where Laban's cattle are three days distant. (& vainly tries to make
sense by omitting ja^, and rendering 'i? = ivavrlop, and "I'pj^'Vx = Kpibv
(•?:>«!) 8id\€VK0P. —41.
®<S5r" supply ny,— 42. Dntypn, D'EoynJ ffi itri-
-^32]
a-7]fxa, darrj/xa but 2. (paraphrasing) irpuifia 6\{/lpm, and similarly Aq.
;
lETÊ^. 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, HN, viii. 187 (* postea concepti invalidi ').
:
— ;
394 Jacob's flight (je)
of peace (from which Gilead receives its name), and separate

with many demonstrations of goodwill (3i'**-32^).
Sources. — ^'^^ is an almost homogeneous (though perhaps not con-

tinuous) excerpt from E : D^nVx, "^^ ^- ^^- ^^
; nnb'^p, ' (cf. *^ 29^") ; D'ib, ' (*i)
'^^'
n^sD, ^^ ; the revelation by dream, ; the summons and answer, ^^
(22^* ^' ^^) ; and the explanation of Jacob's wealth ''^*

; cf. also the refer-
ence to 2820-22. 1 and 3 are from a nin', ^
J parallel Tjfi^ViD, ' the : . ;
' '
—
sons of Laban, ^ (cf. 30^^). In ^'''^ E still preponderates, though J is
more largely represented than some critics (Di. Kue. KS. Dri. al.) allow.
The detailed analysis is here very intricate, and will be best dealt with
—
under the several sections. " (except the first four words) is the only
extract from P.
1-16. Preparations for flight. — i, 3 (J). The jealousy

of Laban's sons corresponds to the dark looks of Laban him-
self in E (v.2) ; the divine communication is a feature of both
narratives (v.^^). — 4-I3. 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 (Gu.) it is first of all an appeal to the wives
;
to accompany him comp. the question to Rebekah in 24^^.

:
— 6. Ye yourselves know^ etc.'] Cf. 3026-29. g^^ ^q 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 E which said nothing

about his tricks with the flock. 7. changed my wages ten —
ttfnes] Perhaps a round number, not to be taken literally.
8. A sample of Laban's tergiversations, and their frustration

by God's providence. p* ^^^ ^0 God has take?z awayj etc.\ —
The hand of God has been so manifest that Laban's dis-
pleasure is altogether unreasonable^ 10-12. Jacob receives —
through a dream the explanation of the singular good fortune
that has attended him.
In the text w.^'^'^^form part of the same revelation as that in which

Jacob is commanded to depart {^^). But, as We. {Comp.^ 39) asks, " How
2, tjr«] MX m'K- (so V.''). — njnx] only here and thrice in Ezk. G-K.
6. (cf.
§32 t). — 7. fjSnm] juuk ri'?n'\ — D'p mtry] nescio qua opinione ducti'
ffir ('
[Jer.]) tG}v d^Ka d/xvwp (so — probably a transliteration, afterwards

*^
made into a Gr. word). D'p (^^f) from ^

njD, 'count,' for the usual
D'9Ji§.—a'n^Nl ;ux ra,T (sq ^-i^*).—9. -jik] (£ -"î-ny.—D3'3k] for p'aK (au);
— — —— — :
XXXI. i-i6 395

could two such dissimilar revelations be coupled together in this way? "
an incident of the past, while ^^ is in the sphere of the
V.^*' recalls
present moreover, ' I am the God of Bethel' must surely open the com-
:
munication. We. solves the difficulty by removing- ^° and ^^ (assigning

them to an unknown source), and leaving ^^ as the introduction to ^^
similarly Di. Ho. OH. al. Gu.
supposes parts of Jacob's speech to
have been omitted between ^ and
and between '^ and ^^. 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 (Str. Gu.) but ;
that is excluded by ^^^ and, besides, in v.^ 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.
13. / am the God of Bethel^ links this theophany with

that of 28^^^-, and is (in E) the first assurance given to Jacob
that his vow [2^^-'^) 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. Comp. 2 Sa. 20^, i Ki. 12^^.
15. âs sold tis\ like slaves. consumed our money] t.e.y the
price paid for us (cf. Ex. 21^). The complaint implies that
itwas considered a mark of meanness for a man to keep the
mohar for himself instead of giving it to his daughters. A
similar change in the destination of the mahr appears in
Arabia before Islam (We. GGN^ 1893, 434 f.). 16. is ours
G-K. § 135 o. —
13. '?Nn'3 Snh] The art. with constr. violates a well known
rule of syntax (G-K. § 127/) and it is doubtful if the anomaly be rightly
;
explained by supposing the ellipsis of hi< or ^jh^. The original text may
have been '?Nri'3 [o'lpp? ^'h^ nK-jan] Sxrt (so [but without '?Nn'3] (&, adopted
;
by Ba.) or WÊ^— j^xn (ÔJ, Kit.).— imSiD pN] see on ii^s. It is the
;
only occurrence of 'd in E. ffi adds —

Kal iao/xai fiercL aov. 15. nin33] —
— —
ux^SiTB 'j?. '?i3N DJ] see on 27^3, 16. ntj'y] (& + Kal ttjp 86âv.
17-25. A complete analysis of the w. cannot be effected. The hand
of E is recognised in ^^^ (o's-jfi, cf. ^ 3S^^'), ^° (? 'Îî}, as ^% and especi-
ally 24 (dm'?n, dSo cf. 29- 42),
; J bctrays its presence chiefly by doublets :
2i»/3 II" (Dijji), and 25a 23b (jjy.^^ p^y.^y -phc assignment of ^la/s to J is
ji
warranted by the mention of the Euphrates hence " is E. Further :
than this we cannot safely go. Gu.'s division (i^*- 21-23. 25b_ j 17. isaa. i9b. 20. .
24. 25a_£)
jg open to the objection that it ignores the discrepancy between
the seven days of 23* and the crossing of the Euphrates in 2i»
(see on 28
above) but is otherwise attractive. Mey. (235 ff.) gets rid of the geo-
;
graphical difficulty by distinguishing two strata in E, of which the

later had been accommodated to the representation of J. ^^ (from —
— —— ——;
:
396 Jacob's flight (je)
and our children's] E never mentions sons of Laban

and apparently looks on Leah and Rachel as the sole
heiresses.
17-25. The flight and pursuit. — 18.and drove away
all his cattle] Hence the slowness of his march as compared
with Laban's (33^^^). —The rest of the v. is from P (cf. 12^
36^ 46^). to Isaac his father] 35^7. — 19. Now Laban had gone
to shear hisjlock] Sheep-shearing- was the occasion of an im-
portant festival in ancient Israel {^S^'^^-j 1 Sa. 252^-, 2 Sa. 13^^).
—With Rachel's theft of the teraphim (the household idol
z;.z.), cf. Virg-. Aen. ii. 293 f., iii. 148 f. 20. stole the heart] —
(2^, 2 Sa. i5^t) '
deceived the heart being the seat of intelli-
'
;
gfence (Ho. 4^^): cf. l/cXci/ê v6ov, 11. xiv. 217. the Aramcean
(only here and 2*)] The emphasising of Laban's nationality
at this point is hard to explain. That it is the correction
(by E^) of an older version (E^), in which Laban was not an
Aramaean (Mey. INS^ 236), is not probable. Bu. {Urg. 422^)
regards it as a gloss, inserted with a view to v.^'^ 21. crossed
the River {^)] the Euphrates (Ex. 23^^ Jos. 24^ etc.). —23.
his brethren] his fellow-clansmen. In the sequel Jacob also
is surrounded by his clansmen i^^- *^- ^^), — a proof that tribal
relations are clothed in the guise of individual biography.

seven days' journey] The distance of Gilead from Harran
waT'^l'riN'!) is obviously P. — 17. sons and wives'] xxx<!& *

wives and sons.'
18. (& om. the cl. \y]\i — iK't; (so Si) ; and adds after d;^!<, Kal iravra to. aurov.
— 19. D'S1J?|] A pi. of eminence, like O'n'^x, etc. ; hence it is doubtful
whether one image or several is here referred to. The teraphim was a
god {^), its form and size were those of a man (i Sa. 19^^*- ^^), it was
used in private houses as well as in temples (Ju. 17"^ i8^^**, Ho. 3*), and
was an implement of divination (Ezk. 21^^, Zee. lo^). 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 (35^, i Sa. 15^, 2 Ki. 23-^*). It seems implied by the present
narrative that the cult was borrowed from the Aramaeans, or perhaps
rather that it had existed before the separation of Hebrews and
Aramaeans. (See Moore, Jud. 379 ff.) 20. 'h^-î;] air. \ey., is difficult, —
^y for nsJ'N '?y is rare and poet. (Ps. 119^^^ BDB, 758 a) 'hi (poet, for : ;
t(h) is also rare with fin. vb. (ib. 115 b). Since the following clause is a
specification of the preceding, wegen Mangels davon dass (Di.) is
* '
not a suitable rendering. We should expect Tjn "rhjh, in not telling- '
him that,' etc. ux has 'n'?a ny.—22. p^*?]

: + ry SjJpy. S
— — .
XXXI. 17-28 397
(r. 350 miles as the crow flies) is much too great to be

traversed in that time.
If the V. be from J (Gu. Pro.), 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 v. to E, that in that source
nothing is said of Harran or the Euphrates, and Laban's home is
placed somewhere in the eastern desert (see 29^).
24. God (not the Angel of God, as v.^^) warns Laban in

a dream to take heed to his words when he encounters
Jacob. good or bad\ 'anything whatever' {24^^, 2 Sa. 13^
etc.). Laban did not interpret the prohibition literally (^S).
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 Mi^pah (v.*^) is strongly recommended by Ju.
10^^ (see Ball, 88). On the situation of Mount Gileady —
see p. 402 f.
26-43. The altercation.

The on Laban's part, {a) the secret
subjects of recrimination are :
carrying off of his daughters, and (c) the theft of his god
flight, {b) the ;
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 E a and d more probably to J. In detail, the w. that can
; —
be confidently assigned to E are ^^ (nj? aj3, as 2^), ^^ (continuation of ^^), :
29 (cf. 24)^ 30.

32-35
(Qânn), « ('ten times'), ^^ (cf. 24. 29)
^nd « (because of
the connexion with 26.28^ . note also dm^x, 29" 42 . nncN, ^^. The sequence
of E is interrupted by ^ (1126)- 3ib
(tê natural answer to 27), 36a (n 36b)
these clauses are accordingly assigned to J along with ^^'^ (a parallel ;
to *^*')« The analysis (which is due to Gu.) yields for E a complete

26. 28-3ia. 32-35. 36b. 37. 4i-43^
narrative : jhe Yahwistic parallel is all but
complete (2'* ^la- b- 36a. 38-40) . j^^^- ^g miss something after ^^
to account
for Jacob's exasperation in ^^ We may suppose (with Gu.) that Laban
had accused Jacob of stealing his flocks, and that ^^"^'^
is a reply to
this charge. — Procksch's division is slightly different.
26-28. Laban offers a sentimental pretext for his warlike

demonstration : in E his slighted affection for his offspring
(28) ; honour a parting guest p^). 27. with
in J his desire to —
mirth and music] This manner of speeding the parting guest
25. vnx] Fetter 't^r\it (Ba.).— 26, 27. (K om. "n^^-nn njjm, and transp.
27a. 26b^ _ 27. nh)] ®^ h)], which is perhaps better than MT.— 28. B'BJ]
usually *
reject ' or * abandon '
; only here = allow.' *
—wy] for n^j^ (G-K.
— — —
39^ Jacob's FLIGHT (je)
is not elsewhere mentioned in OT. 29. It is in my power —

(7;. 2.) to do —
you har7n\ but for the interposition of God.
30. Thou hast gone off forsooth^ because forsooth^ etc.] The
infs. abs. express irony (Dav. § 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 house-
hold that he offers to give up the culprit to death if the theft
can be proved : a similar enhancement of dramatic interest in
44^-. — 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 cameV slitter
or palanquin (Burck. Bed. ii. 85 Doughty, Ar. Des. i. 437, ;
ii.304; BDB, 1 124), in which she was apparently resting

within the tent, on account of her condition. 35. D^K^^^ ?|i;n = —
D^^'33 n"iX (18^^, J). Women in this condition were pro-
tected by a powerful taboo Jacob
(cf. Lv. 15^^ etc.). — 36, 37.
now turns on
Laban, treating the accusation about the
teraphim as mere pretext for searching his goods. 38-40 (J). —
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. / brought not to
thee] as a witness (Ex. 22^). Jacob had thus gone far
beyond his legal obligation. made it good] lit. counted it '
§ 75«.—29. n; Mic. 2\ Pr. s^\ Sir. 5I (Dt. 28^2, Neh. 5«). The
î<)-^:']
meaning is be within one's power '), but the expression is very

certain (*
obscure. The current explanations (both represented in the Vns.) are :
(i) That an abstract noun = power,' and n; g-en. (2) That n; is

î< is *
subj. of the sent, and '?N the word for God my hand is for a God.' :
*
The first depends on a singular sense of hi< and for the second SnS n» '*? tt"
;
would have been more natural. A third view has recently been pro-
pounded by Brockelmann {ZATW, xxvi. 29 ff,), who renders it belongs *
to the God my
hand,' a survival of a primitive belief in special deities
of
or spirits animating different members of the body (cf. Tylor, Prim.
Culf.*ii. 127). — D3Dj;, QD'nN] AJLtffi have sing. suff. — 30. I'Dn] (& + direXdeiV
Kal. The ) —
should probably be restored. 31. I& om. -riNn' 'D. ^32. The —
opening words in (& 3py.; i'? "iijn'1 may be original, introducing the dupli-
—
cate from E. 32b is preceded in (& by the variant Kal oiiK iiriyvu) trap
aiiTi^ ovdev. —
33. faS] jju. + B-anM (rd. cijnn) so HSc. The cl. ^'*^ disagrees
; —
with what follows, and may be a gloss. (& reduces the discrepancy by
omissions, and a complete rearrangement of clauses. 36. n?^] Rd. nai —
with Heb. MSS Aja(!BrS.—39. On n^n^ for njN?)DN, cf G-K. § 74 i or
;
XXXI. 29-43 399
missing".* —
40. heat by day and frost by night'] Jer. 36^^.
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,
—
HGy 69 ff.). 41, 42 (E). the Fear of Isaac] The deity feared
and worshipped by Isaac (^^t). That pn^^. ^na meant origin-
ally the terror inspired by Isaac, the local deity of Beersheba
(Meyer, INS, 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**. —The
question what shall I do to . . . ?] means *
what last kind-
ness can show them?' (Gu.
I Dri.); not *
how can I do
them harm? (Di. and most). '
44-54. The treaty of Gilead.

Evidences of a double recension appear in every circumstance of the-
narrative, (a) Two names are explained Gilead if'^), and Mizpah (*^): ;;
(6) two sacred monuments are erected, a cairn {^^' ^^), and a
'^' '^*
monolith C^^- ^^- °2) (c) the covenant feast is twice recorded {^^' ^) j
;
{d) the terms of the covenant are given in two forms (i) Jacob will not :
ill-treat Laban's daughters (^°), and (2) the cairn is to mark the boundary
between two peoples {^^) {e) God is twice called to witness (^^^- ^2). 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 J always avoids the word n?;fO (p. 378), we
assume first of all that the monolith (and consequently Mizpah) belongs
to E, and the cairn to J. Now the cairn goes with \he frontier trGaXy
J), and Mizpah with t\i& family compact {^^, E).
^61. 52 [removing glosses],
To J we must obviously assign ^®- ^, and also (if we may suppose that
only the h% was spoken of as an ny) " while E as naturally claims ^. ;
At the end, ^^b

ig E likewise " (the feast, ^, J).
(pnx' ina, cf. ^% and ||
^^ is probably J note the difference of divine names.

: Thus ^^' ^* : ^
6i-53a=j. 45. 49. 60. 63b. 54Ê_The analysis is due to Ho. and
Gu. ;
Pro. practically agrees, with the important difference that the parts of
J and E are (quite wrongly, as it seems to me) interchanged. It is
superior to the schemes of We. Di. KS. al., which assign the cairn and
the mazzebah —
same sources. The principal glosses (many of
to the
which excite suspicion apart from the analysis) are 3py' in ^' and ^
75 00. —
n*?'^ 'y\ dv 'naaa is probably an archaic technical phrase, pre-
serving an old case-ending (G-K. § 90/). 40. On the syntax, see G-K.
— —
§ 143 a. 41. These twenty years] The repetition {\.^) would, as Di.
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 re-

lieved of this slight touch of affectation. ni] not here a pron. but used —
adverbially, as 27^^ etc. (see BDB, 261 b). 42. cm^N 'nVx may be a gloss —
(Gu.): (K om. 'n'?K.
:
400 TREATY OF GILEAD (je)
yv 47. 49aa .-,3JfDn Him in ^^ n32^Dn myi and nxin nn^Dn-riNi in ^^ on these v.i.
. ; ;
Nearly all are retained by fflr, where, however, the confusion is increased
by a complete change in the order of clauses ^- ^^- 5^*- *^^- ^^- 5"*- ^'^^, ^''-
—
:
50b
—
being inserted] after ^. The analysis works out in translation as
follows (glosses being enclosed in square brackets, and necessary
additions and corrections in r ^) :
J :
^ And now
(the speaker is E: 45And'"heT(?.^. Laban) [Jacob]
Laban), come, let us make a cove- took a stone and set it up as a pillar.
nant, I and thou and it shall be
; . . .
^^^ ""and he said\ May TGodT
for a witness between me and thee. [Yahwe] watch between me and
*« And TheT
Laban) [Jacob],
{i.e. thee, when we are hidden from one
said to his brethren, Gather another. ^^ If thou ill-treat my
stones and they took stones, and
; daughters, or take other wives be-
made a cairn, and they ate there sides my daughters, no man being
upon the cairn. [^'' And Laban with us, see, God is witness be-
called it Y'^garSdhdduthd, but Jacob tween me and thee. ^^^ And Jacob
called it GaV ed.] "^ And Laban swore by the Fear of his father
said, This cairn is a witness be- Isaac. ^^ And Jacob offered a
tween me and thee this day there- ; sacrificeon the mountain and called
fore he called its name '"Gil' ad"" his brethren to eatbread and they ;
[49aa and Mizpah, for he said], î

ate bread, and spent the night on
And Laban said to Jacob, Behold the mountain.
this cairn [and behold the pillar]
which I have thrown up between
—
me and thee ^^ 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
-phe God of Abraham
and the God of Nahor be Judge
between us [the God of their
!
father].
44. Cf. 2628ff-— The subj. of

2i23ff.
cannot be nna, ^''J}'\,
which and is rather the fact to be witnessed to than

is fern.,
a witness of something else. There must be a lacuna before

rrni, where we must suppose that some material object
(probably the cairn: was mentioned. 45 (E). And

cf. ^^, J)
—
he took a stone] Since Laban who explains the meaning-
it is
of the stone (^^), it must have been he who set it up hence ;
3py^_ is to be deleted as a false explication of the implicit
44b. The omitted words {v.s.) might be hi nbyji or some such expres-
sion (Ols. Di. Ba. Gu. al.). To the end of the v. (& appends eXirev 5k :
avry Ta/c., T5oi> ovBeU fied' ij/xQv iarlv ide 6 debs /xaprvs dva fxiaov i/xoO Kal
— — ——
XXXI. 44-49 4^1
subj. set it on high as a mazzebah] see 28^^- ^. The mono-

lith may have
stood on an eminence and formed a con-
spicuous feature of the landscape (Di.). 46 (J). And he —
(Laban) said^ etc.] Here wrong, for Laban
SpV"!. is certainly
expressly says that the cairn was raised by him (î). a cairn]
73 means simply a heap of stones (v.i.)y not a rampart (We.
Di.). The idea that the ?3 was originally the mountain range
of Gilead itself, Laban and Jacob being conceived as giants

(We. Gu. Mey.), has certainly no support in the text. they
ate upon the cairn] The covenant
which may very well feast,
have preceded the covenant ceremony; see 2^. 47. In —
spite of its interesting and philologically correct notice, the
V. must unfortunately be assigned to a glossator, for the
reasons given below. —
48 (J). 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 (cf. Jos. 242^). 1]}^^
is, of course, an artificial formation, not the real or original
pronunciation of ^Vpa. 49 (E). And [the] Mizpah, for he

said] The text, if not absolutely ungrammatical, is a very
ao\) (fr. v.«>).—46. inp'i] (S itDp^n.— ^3] From sj ^^J 'roll' (stones, 29^,
Jos. lo^^ I Sa. 14^, Pr. 26^). On
sacred stone-heaps among the Arabs,
see We. Heid.^ iiif. (with which cf. Doughty, Ar. Des. i. 26, 81, 431);
Curtiss, PSR, 80 (cairn as witness) on the eating upon the cairn,
;
Frazer, Folklore in OTy 131 if. —

47. Nnnqb nr is the precise Aramaic
equivalent of Heb. ny *?:, 'heap of witness.' The decisive reasons for
rejecting the v. are (i) It stands out of its proper place, anticipating *'^^ ;
:
(2) it contradicts ^^, where the Heb. name lyâ is given by Laban ;
(3) it assumes (contrary to the implication of ail the patriarchal
narratives) that the Nahorites spoke a different dialect from the
ancestors of the Hebrews. It may be added that the Aram, phrase
shows the glossator to have taken nyâ as const, and gen., whereas the
latter in ^^ is more probably a sent. * the heap is witness (see Nestle, '
MMy 10 f.). The actual name ij;îi[n] is usually, but dubiously, explained
by Ar. gal' ad 'hard,' 'firm.'—48. lOJJ' wnp p-hv] so n^ ig"^ 2i^^^ (all J),
2$^ (J ?)•—49- "??'?':ii] Jju. nnisDni, which We. thinks the original name of
the place, afterwards changed to nsiiDn because of the evil associations
of the word mazzebah. He instances the transcription of ffi Maaaricpa,
as combining the consonants of the new name with the vowels of the old
{Comp? 44^), 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 U'^s;^^ hb'k nasoni
26
— — — — :;
402 TREATY OF GILEAD (je)
uncouth continuation of *^^, with which in the primary

documents it had nothing to do see further inf. May God ;
—
(read so with ^) 'waic}i\ Mizpah means * watch-post.' On
its situation, see p. 403; — 50* The purport of the covenant,
according to E. Jacob swears (^^^) 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 {KIB, iv. 187, No. XL). God is witness]
The idea primitive than that of J, where the witness
is less
is an inanimate object. —We

observe how the religious
sanction is invoked where human protection fails (cf. 20^^
42^^, both E). 5I-53a. The terms of the covenant in J
neither party (people) is to pass the cairn with hostile intent.
52a. bj
All the reff. to the mazzebah (î^'-
^re to be deleted as
glosses. — The Nahor] Whether a
God of Abraham . . .
polytheistic two gods is attributed to

differentiation of
Laban can hardly be determined. The pi. vb. would not
necessarily imply this in E (see 20^^), though in J it
—
might. 53b, 54. The covenant oath and feast in E. The
Fear of Isaac] See on v.*^.
. . . 54. his brethren] not —
Laban and his companions, but his own fellow-clansmen
(v.^^). spent the nighty etc.] Is this part of the religious
ceremony? (Gu.).
The Scene of the Treaty.—The name Gil'dd (often with art.) in OT is

sometimes applied to the whole reg-ion E of the Jordan (Jos. 22^ etc.),
but more properly denotes the mountain range (nj^ân nn) extending from
IDK [? n^^sn Nî^ has met with the approval of several scholars (Ho. Str.)
but as the sequence to ^ we should rather expect nsân no-f Nli?n. ffi has
/cai'H 6pa(ns, fjv eXirev, following MT. —
m,T] (& wrha must be adopted if
—
the v. is rightly ascribed to E. 51. nnîDn] (!& + n«?n(so v.'^^) -n'T niyx] —
'which I have thrown up.' riT, 'throw,' is most commonly used of
shooting arrows, and only here of piling- up stones. Once it means to
lay {jacere) a foundation (Jb. 38^), 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 mazzebah as obj. of 'n'T and
rejecting the cairn. 52. nV — —
ex {bis)'\ The double negative is contrary to
the usage of asseverative sentt, (cf. ^**), but may be explained by an
anakolouthon (G-K. § 1676). — nin '?jn-nN] <& cm. — 53. ifis;^'] «xffiF.S
vm\. — D.TDtt 'n'?N] (& and Heb. MSS om., jsx omnN 'n, ^ ^01^ j.
Probably a marg. gloss to ^â.

—XXXIL I. at^M ® i"?'!] !ij»n 3V',*1.
XXXI. 50-S3 403
the Yarmuk to the Arnon
(2 Ki. 10^ etc.), divided by the Jabbok into
two parts corresponding to the modern &ehel 'Aglun and el-
(Jos. 12^),
Belkd, N and S respectively of the Wadi ez-Zerka. The name Gebel
^tl'dd still survives as that of a mountain, crowned by the lofty summit
of Gebel Osha, N of es-Salt, where are found the ruined cities &iV dd and
&aTaud (Burckh. Syria, 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 (i) that Jacob, coming from the N, has not
yet crossed the Jabbok, which is identified with the Zerka and (2) that
;
the frontier between Israel and the Aramaeans (of Damascus) could not
have been so far S. These reasons have prevailed with most modern
authorities, and led them to seek a site somewhere in the N or NE of
G. Aglun. But the assumption that Laban represents the Aramaeans of
'
Damascus is gratuitous, and has no foundation in either J or E (see the

next note). The argument from the direction of Jacob's march applies
only to J, and must not be too rigorously pressed because the treaty
;
of Gilead and the crossing of the Jabbok 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.* The site oi Mizpdh
has to be investigated separately, since we cannot be certain that J
and E thought of the same locality. E of the Jordan there was a
Mizpah (Ju. 10" ii^^- ^, Ho. 5^) which is thought to be the same as
nj;;^: ns^p (Ju. ii^^) and ns^sn np-j (Jos. 1326) but whether it lay S or N
;
of the Jabbok cannot be determined. The identification with Ramdth-

Gil'ad, and of this with er-Remte, S W
of the ancient Edrei, is precarious.
The name (* watch-post ') was a common one, and may readily be sup-
posed to have occurred more than once E of the Jordan. See Smith,
HG, 586 Buhl, GP, 262 Driver in smaller DB, s.v. ; and on the whole
; ;
of this note, cf. Smend, ZATW, 1902, 149 ff".

Historical Background of 2^^'^^- —
The treaty of Gilead in J evi-
dently embodies ethnographic reminiscences, in which Jacob and
Laban were not private individuals, but represented Hebrews and
Aramaeans respectively. The theory mostly favoured by critical
historians is that the Aramaeans are those of Damascus, and that the
* It to me very doubtful how far Jacob's route, as described

seems
in chs. 32, 33,can be safely used as a clue to the identification of the
localities mentioned (Gilead, Mizpah, Mahanaim, 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 p. 408).
The impossibility of the current identifications {e.g. those of Merrill and
Conder), as stages of an actual itinerary, is clearly shown by Dri. in
ETy xiii. (1902), 457 ff. It is only when that assumption is frankly
abandoned that the identification of Gilead with GiV ad, of Mahanaim
with Mahne (p. 405), of the Ford with Mui^ddat en-Nusrdnfyeh (p. 408)^
becomes feasible.
—
404 JACOB PREPARES TO MEET ESAU (je)
situation reflected is that of the Syrian wars which rag-ed from c. 860 to
c. 770 B.C. (see We. Gu. (p. 312) has, however, pointed out
Prol.^ 320 f.).
objections to this assumption and has given strong reasons for be-
;
lieving- that the narratives refer to an earlier date than 860. The story
reads more like the record of a loose understanding between neighbour-
ing- 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
Laban represented the early unsettled nomads of the
original tradition
eastern desert (see p. 334), acquires a new interest. Considering the
tenacity with which such legends cling to a locality, there is no diffi-
culty in supposing that in this case the tradition goes back to some
prehistoric settlement of territorial claims between Hebrews and
migratory Aramaeans. It is true that Meyer's theory is based on
notices peculiar to E, while the tribal compact belongs to J and it ;
may appear hazardous to go behind the documents and build specula-

tions on a substratum of tradition common to both. But the only
material point in which J differs from E is his identification of Laban
with the Aramaeans of Harran 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.
XXXII. 2-33. JacoVs Measures for propitiating Esau :

His Wrestling with the Deity at Peniel (J, E).
After a vision of angels at Mahanaim i^- ^), Jacob sends

a humble message announcing his arrival to Esau, but
is advancing to
learns to his consternation that his brother
meet him with 400 men (*"^). He divides his company into
two bands, and invokes God's help in prayer (8-i4aj ^ên .
prepares a present for Esau, and sends it on in advance

ji4b-22j^ Having thus done all that human foresight could
suggest, he passes a lonely night in the ravine of the
Jabbok, wrestling with a mysterious antagonist, who at
daybreak blesses him and changes his name to Israel
Sources. —Vv.^-' are an isolated fragment of E (d'H^k 'dk^D, 3 ya^

[2811]) ;
4-"a and are parallels (cf. ^^ with 22b), the former from J
"^-22
(ni.T, i'> ; nnsK', « mSio, ^^ jn nsd, ^ ct. the implied etymology of n\ir\p in
; ; ;
8. 9. 11
with E's in ^) "^'"^^ must therefore be E, though positive marks
:
of that writer's style cannot be detected. —

On the complicated structure
Qf 23-33 (JE), see p. 407 below.
—
XXXII. 2-6 40S
2, 3. The legend of Mahanaim. 2. angels , . . mel —

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 OT
(cf. and perhaps underlies the expression Host
Jos. 5^^), *
of heaven and the name Yahwe Zeba'dth.

' Mahanaim is —
here apparently not regarded as a dual (ct. ^- ^* ^^). On its
site, v.i.
The brief statement of the text seems to be a torso of a legend which

had g-athered round the name Mahanaim, whose original meaning has
been lost. The curtailment probably indicates that the sequel was
objectionable to the religious feeling of later times ; and has been
it
surmised that the complete story told of a conflict between Jacob and
the angels (originally divine beings), somewhat similar to the wrestling
of vv 24ff.
(Qu^ Ben.). The word 'camp' (cf. the fuller text of (& inf,\
and the verbal phrase 3 j;3£3 both suggest a warlike encounter.
4-i4a. Jacob's precautionary measures (J). — ^v 4.

Isaac's death and Esau's settlement in the country after-
wards occupied by his descendants are here assumed to
have already taken place otherwise P (36^). 5, 6. We :
—
note the extreme servility of Jacob's language my lord :
. . thy servant
. fnd grace, dictated by fear of his
. . . —
brother's vengeance (27*^). In substance the message is
2. After lannS ffi ins. Kal dvaj3\^\//as to?s 6(p0aK/j.oLS t8ep irapefxôX^v deov
irapefiêpXTjKvTav, enhancing the vividness of the description. —5 y^?] =
'encounter with hostility,' Ju. Sî 1512 igss, 1 Sa. 22"^-, 2 Sa. i^^, i Ki.
225ff-,
Ru. 222;= 'intercede,' jb. 21^^, Jer. f^zf^ Ru. ii«. The neutral
sense 'meet,* with pers. obj., is doubtfully supported by Nu. 35^^* 2^,
Jos. 2^^, where hostile intention is evidently implied elsewhere this is :
expressed by ace. pers. (Ex. 520 23^, i Sa. lo^ Am. 5^^). Gn. 28^^ is
somewhat different, the obj. being impers. (cf. the use in Jos. 16^ ly^^
etc.). —
3. D':nD] an important East Jordanic city and sanctuary, the
capital of Ish-bosheth (2 Sa. 2^), and David's headquarters during
the revolt of Absalom (2 Sa. 172*- 2?), the centre of a fiscal district under
Solomon (i Ki. 4'*). The situation of Mahne or Mihne on W. el-Himar,
some 14 m. N of the Jabbok (see Buhl, GP, 257), suits all the other
—
references (cf. Jos. 1326' «> the boundary of Gad and Manasseh), but
is too far from the Jabbok for this narrative (v. 23). On the ending,
which is probably no real dual, see on 24^°.
4. vjs^] (& om.— mnK mr] (cf. Ju. 5*) is probably a gloss on "VDv n)i-\H.
—5. pnDNn] cf. i828ff-_nnNi] for nn^gi (G-K. § 64 A).—6. nnSB-Ni] Cohort.
form with vav consec. —chiefly late ; see Dri. T. § 69 Obs., § 72 ; G-K.
—
406 JACOB PREPARES TO MEET ESAU (je)
nothing but an announcement of his arrival and his great

wealth (cf. 33^^^-) The shepherd, with all his success, is
at the mercy of the fierce marauder who was to Mive by
his —
sword' (27*^). 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 p. 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 33^.
— IO-I3. Jacob's prayer, consisting of an invocation (i<^),
thanksgiving (i^), petition i^'^)^ and appeal to the divine
faithfulness (^^), is a classic model of OT devotion (Gu.);
though the element of confession, so prominent in later
supplications, is significantly absent.^ 12. mother with —
(or 071) children] Hos. 10^* cf. Dt. 22^. A popular saying,
;
— the mother conceived as bending over the children to

protect them (Tu.). — 14a. spent that night there] i.e.y at
Mahanaim (v.^^). We may suppose (with We. Gu.) that an
explicit etymology, based on the '
two camps ' (vv.^- ^^), pre-
ceded or followed this clause.
Yv. 10-13 appear to be one of the later expansions of the Yahwistic

narrative, akin to I3^'*'^' 22!'-!^ 26^''"° 28^^. They can be removed with-
out loss of continuity, ^*^ being a natural continuation of ". The in-
sertion gives an interpretation to the * two camps at variance with '
the primary motive of the division (v.") and its spirit is different from
;
that of the narrative in which it is embedded. Comp. also D'n Vm with

22^^ mc nsD' vh with i6i° 22". See Gu. 316.
i4b-22. The present for Esau (E). 14. a present] Not
§ 49 e. — 8. n^'i] = be cramped on the form, cf. G-K.

sj ^^^ intrans. *
'
;
§ 67/. — D''?Djm] ^^^ transp. jNsn-rtNi npa.Tnxi. m^no 'jb'] That

ffiÂ Qrn^ —
this implies an etymology of Mahanaim, and that J located the incident
there, cannot reasonably be doubted (as by Ho.). The name is
obviously regarded as a dual (in contrast to v.'), showing that the
current pronunciation is —
very ancient (Di.). 9. nnxn] mx thnh (masc),
which is demanded by tl.econtext, as well as by prevailing usage
(Albrecht, ZATW, xvi. 52). — ii. p 'n:i2p] 'too insignificant for'; G-K.
§ 133 c. — nin p'^''^] The writer apparently locates
the Mahanaim in
vicinity of the but the allusion, in an editorial passage, has
Jordan ;
perhaps no great topographical importance.

14. K3.T|D] Art. with ptcp. (not pf.) see G-K. § 138 >&; Dri. Sam.
;
— —— — —;
XXXII. 7-24 407
'tribute* (as often) in acknowledgment of vassalage, but

(as 43^1, 2 Ki. 8^'-) a gift to win favour. 17-20. By arrang-
ing the cattle in successive droves following at considerable
Jacob hopes to wear out Esau's resentment by a
intervals,
series of surprises.The plan has nothing in common with
the two 'camps' of v.^'- in J. 2ia. A repetition of ^^^ — :
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. 2lb. Let
me pacify him\ lit. ' cover '
(or *wipe clean ') his face, the —
same figure, though in different language, as 20^^. On 133,
see OTJC^, 381 DB^ iv. i28f. seehisface^
;
'
obtain access to
his presence '
: cf. 43^- ^ 44^^- 2^, Ex. lo^^, 2 Sa. 142*- 28. 32^ 2 Ki.
25^^, Est. ii*. The phrase is thought to convey an allusion
to Penu' el {G\i.); see on 33^^. —22. spent . . camp [p}J}y^'^)\
.
cf. ^**. We. [CovipP' 46) renders 'in Mahaneh {i,e, '
Mahanaim), but the change is hardly justified.

23-33. The wrestling at Peniel (JE).— 23, 24. The
crossing of the Jabbok. The YahhoJi is now almost univers-
57 f. — nmo] see on 4^. — 17. nn 4"+)] V nn, 'be wide' (i Sa. 162',
(Est.
Jb. 3220).— 18. On the forms (Ben Napht.), tj^j-:;. (Ben Asher),
?i^3D;
see G-K. §§ 92;, 10^ (c), 606, [and B.-D., Gen. p. 85]; and on l'?NBn,
§ 64/ 20. — i2i'i] ®+ T<{; irpd}T({}. — D2Nsb] irreg". inf. for a^^'^D (G-K. §§ 74 A,
93^).— 21. 2pr] JAtffiE*^J + N3.
23-33. The analysis of the passage is beset by insurmountable diffi-
culties. While most recognise doublets in ^s'- [v.s.), 25-33 have generally
been regarded as a unity, being assigned to J by We. Kue. Corn. KS.
Dri. al. but by Di. to E.
; In the view of more recent critics, both J and
E are represented, though there is the utmost variety of opinion in regard
to details. In the notes above, possible variants have been pointed out
so
in 26=^ M 26b (the laming of the thigh) and 28- 29 (^he name and the blessing) |i
to these may be added the still more doubtful case ^^ ^2 (Peniel, Penuel). 1
As showing traces of more primitive conceptions, 26a and ^° would natur-

ally go together, and also ^ for the same reason. Since J prefers the
name Israel in the subsequent history, there a slight presumption that
is
^'-belong to him and the d'h"?** of ^^ ; points (though not decisively) to E.
Thus we should obtain, for E 26a. 27. so. 81 leaving for J 26b. 28. 29. 32 ^.88
: . : .
may be a gloss. The result corresponds nearly, so far as it goes, with

Gu.'s (318 f.). The reader may compare the investigations of Ho. (209 f.),
Procksch (32), Meyer {/NS, 57 f.). 23. ton n'?''?^ (jua Ninn)] as 19^3 30^6^ —
p3: {xxx pyn) (Nu. 212-*, Dt. 2=" 3I6,
ri^3. 22^) jg naturally ex- Jos. 122, Ju.
plained as the 'gurgler,' from sj PP^ (Ar. bakka), the resemblance to
p2U (v. 25) being, of course, a popular word-play. 24b. Insert "^5 before
—
:
408 THE WRESTLING AT PENIEL (je)
ally, and no doubt correctly, identified with the Nahr ez-Zerka

(Blue River), whose middle course separates 6ebel 'Aglun
from el-Belka, and which flows into the Jordan about 25 m.
N of the Dead Sea. See Smend, ZATW^ 1902, 137 ff. and ;
the descriptions in Riehm, Hwh-^ 665 ; Smith, HG^ 583-5.

The yoT'^ referred to cannot be determined ; that oi Muhadat
en-Nusranlyeh, where the road from 6era§ to es-Salt
crosses the deep narrow gorge which cleaves the mountains
of Gilead, as described by Thomson (LBy iii. 583 ff.) and
Tristram (Land of Israelii 549)) supplies a more fitting back-
ground for the weird struggle about to be narrated than the
one in the Jordan valley; but on the difficulties of this
identification, see Dri. ET^ xiii. 459.
passag-e of the river seems to be twice described, *^ and ^*' being-
The
apparently doublets. The former continues ^^, which belongs to J (nnsB').
Following this clue, we may divide thus ^' ^*^=] 23b. 24b=E (go Gu.).
: ;
While E implies that Jacob crossed with his company, the account of
^s*,
J is consistent with the statement of 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 (We.). 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.
25. a man wrestled 'with him

till the appearing of the dawn]
—Only Jacob discover that his unknown antagonist

later does
is a god in human form (cf. 18^ 19^). The rare word [v.i.) for—
* wrestle
(p3«)'is chosen because of the assonance with p3^.
—26a. he saw that he prevailed not] The ambiguity of the
subject extends to the next clause, and leaves two inter-
pretations 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 KS. An.
159), and it is highly probable that the two halves of the v. come from
IK'N (au^^SU). —25. p3KM] A vb. used only here and v.^^, distinct from
NH p3Nnn, *
make oneself dusty,' and very probably a modification of
pnn, 'clasp' (De. Di.). —26. ypni] ^ up', lit. *be rent away' (cf. Jer. 6^)
— — —
XXXII. 24-29 409

different sources. In '^ it is a stratagem resorted to by a wrestler
unable to gain the advantage by ordinary means (like the trick of
Ulysses in //. xxiii. 725 ff.); in êb 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 subj. of ^* was Jacob that it was he who dis- —
abled his antagonist in the manner described (Ho. Gu. Che. see Miiller, :
AE, 163I
; Luther, ZATW, Meyer, INS, 57). It is possible
xxi. 65 ff. ;
(though certainly not probable) that this was the view of the document
"^^
(J or E) to which belongs, and that it underlies Hos. I2^
27. Let me go^ for the dawn is hreaking\ Comp. Plautus,

Amphitr. 532 where Jupiter says: *'Cur me tenes?
f.,
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 i. Sc. i.) ; and
as such, a proof of the extreme antiquity of the legend. — But
the request reveals to Jacob thesuperhuman character of
hi§ 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] Visra'elj probably = 'God strives' {v.i,)^ is
interpreted as * Striver with God '
; cf. a similar transforma-
tion of H'3V (< Baal contends ') in Ju. 6^^. 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
(S[ ivdpKTja-ev, % Aj_», U emarcuity C° yi (* gave way '), — all conjectural.
29. Vx^f :] A name of the same type as '?«j;db", '?NDm% with some such etc. ,
meaning as *
God Let God strive
strives '
or originally (it has been
*
' ;
suggested) a war-cry which passed into a proper name (see Steuernagel,

Einw. 61). The vb. ma', however, only occurs in connexion with this
incident (Ho. 12*- ", where read nb'n), and in the personal name nnif and >*
its real meaning is uncertain. If it be the Heb. equivalent of An Sariya^

Dri. argues that it must mean persist or * persevere rather than
*
' '
* strive '{DB, ii. 530), which hardly yields a suitable idea. Some take
it as a by-form of iiB', either in a denominative sense ('rule,' from n^,
prince), or in its assumed primary significance shine forth (Ass. Sardru * '
:
see Vollers, ARW, ix. 184). Some doubt has even been thrown on the
traditional Heb. pronunciation by the form Ysirr, found on an inscr. of
Merneptah (Steindorff, ZATW, xvi. 330 ff.), with which we may compare
4IO THE WRESTLING AT PENIEL (je)
in this successful strugfgle with deity. 30. Jacob vainly —

endeavours to extort a disclosure of the name of his anta-
gonist. This is possibly an older variant of ^'-j 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
(Che. TBI, 401I; DB,
For the concealment of the
v. 640).
name, cf. Ju. same words).

13^^ Gu. thinks that
(the —
in the original narrative the name of the wrestler was
actually revealed.— 31. PenVel\ Face of God' [v.u\ The *
name is derived from an incidental feature of the experience :
that Jacob had seen '*God/«c^ to face'' (Ex. 33^1, Dt. 34^^),
and yet lived (see on 16^^). —The site of Peniel is unknown:
see Dri. ETy 457 and Gen. 300 ff. 32. limping on
xiii. if., —
his thigh] in consequence of the injury he had received (2^^).
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
OT and the Mishnic prohibition (Hullin^ 7)
; is probably
dependent on this passage. Rob. Sm. explains it from the
sacredness of the thigh as a seat of life [RS'^, 380^) »* and
Ass. Sir--lai ( = ''?Knt5") (see Kittel, SBOT Chroniclesy p. 58). Comp. also
Che. TBI, 404.—nns*] ffi iviaxvffas, Aq. ^pâj, S. ifpû, "B foHts futsit, SS
Z55A-»1, E^ B« 31.-31. ^x'JS] ffi EWos deov,jjuSFS read Skus as v.».

The formal difference arises from the old case-endings of gen. and nom.
(G-K. § 900). Strabo (xvi. ii. 16, 18) mentions a Phoenician pro-
montory near Tripolis called Qeov irpbawirov it is not improbable that :
in both cases the name is derived from a fancied resemblance to a face.

— 33. rimn Tj] nm is to be explained by Ar. nas^*^ (for nasay"**), which
means the nervus ischiadicus, or the thigh in which it is found (Ges.
Th. 921 f.). The question remains whether Ti denotes here a nerve,
an artery, a sinew, or a muscle the first seems by far the most pro-
;
bable. So it seems to have been understood by % (I ' ^ ^ U? |i * it

= tetanus-nerve), and by (& and U, which appear to have connected
nvi with the vb, for 'forget' (Gr.-Venet, rh vevpov rb ^TriKeXrja-fxivov \).
The modern Jewish according to De., to the " Span-

restriction applies,
nader, d. h. die innere Ader des sogen. Hinterviertels mit Einschluss
der ausseren und der Verastelungen beider."
* " The nature of the lameness produced by injury to the sinew of the
thigh socket is explained by the Arabic lexx., s.v. hdrt/at; 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."
XXXII. 30-33 4^^
We. (Heid. i68^) calls attention to a trace of it in ancient

Arabia. For primitive parallels, see Frazer, Golden Bought
ii. 419 fF., Folklore in OT^ 142 f. The precise meaning of
\W17\ T2 is uncertain {v,i,\.
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 en-
counter.whi.qh 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
reUgion and its history may have been somewhat as follows (i) We
; :
begin with the fact of a hand-to-hand conflict between a god and a man.
A similar idea appears in Ex. 4^*^', 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 (/b/>^/or^, 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 Jabbok in which case the word-play between p^: and
;
p3N 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 Gu. and others, that the limping on the thigh
refers to a ritual dance regularly observed there (cf. i Ki. 18^^).* (3) By
J and E 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 un-
certain. lTo these writers the main interest lies in thej)rigin of the name
Israel, and the blessing bestowed on the nation in the person of its
"âncestor. (4) A still more refined interpretation is found, it seems to
me, in Ho. 12** ' In the womb he overreached his brother and in his
:
* ;
prime he strove with God. He strove ("i?''!) with the Angel and pre-
vailed he wept and made supplication to him.' The substitution of the
;
Angel of Yahwe for the divine Being Himself shows increasing sensitive-
ness to anthropomorphism and the last line appears to mark an advance
;
in the spiritualising of the incident, the subject being not the Angel (as
Gu. and others hold), but Jacob, whose prevailing thus becomes that
*
'
—
of importunate prayer. We may note in a word Steuernagel's ethno-
* But see footnote on p. 410 above.

412 MEETING OF JACOB AND ESAU (je)
logical interpretation. He considers the wrestling- to symbolise a victory

of the invading Israelites over the inhabitants of N Gilead. The change
of name reflects the fact that a new nation (Israel) arose from the fusion
of the Jacob and Rachel tribes {Einw. 6i f.).
Ch. XXXIII.— 7%^ Meeting of the Brothers: Jacob's March

to Shechem (JE, P).
The dreaded meeting at last takes place ; the brothers

are reconciled, and part in friendship ; Esau returning to
Seir, whileJacob moves on by slow stages first to Succoth
—
and then to Shechem. It is difficult to characterise the spirit
in which the main incident is conceived. Was Esau's pur-
pose friendly from the first, or was he turned from thoughts
of vengeance by Jacob's submissive and flattering demeanour?
Does the writer regard the reconciliation as equally honour-
able to both parties, or does he only admire the skill and
knowledge of human nature with which Jacob tames his
brother's ferocity? The truth probably lies between two
extremes. That Esau's intention was hostile, and that
Jacob gained a diplomatic victory over him, cannot reason-
ably be doubted. On the other hand, the narrator must be
acquitted of a desire to humiliate Esau. If he was vanquished
by generosity, the noblest qualities of manhood were released
in him and he displays a chivalrous magnanimity which no
;
appreciative audience could ever have held in contempt. So

far as any national feeling is reflected, it is one of genuine
respect and goodwill towards the Edomites.
Sources. — are rightly assigned in the main to J, in spite of the

Vv.^"^'^
fact that the only divine name which occurs is dm'?n, in ^^- ^''' ^^. In these
vv. we must recognise the hand of E (cf. also ^^ with 48^, and '^^^ with
32*^) and, for all that appears, E's influence may extend further. The
;
chief indications, however, both material and linguistic, point to J as the

leading source the 400 men (32^), the camp in v.^ (32^), and the ex-
:
*
'
pressions ninsjt?, i« 2. e . J^»{^p'? p-|^ 4 j^ h^d, ^ i^- " p'V'^, ^°. The docu-
:
.
;
ments are so deftly interwoven that it is scarcely possible to detect a

flaw in the continuity of the narrative. — ^^"'^
are probably from E, except
^^^, which is taken from P (see on the w. below).
I-7« The meeting". — I, 2. Jacob's fears revive at sight

— — — ;'
XXXIII. i-ii 413
of the 400 men (32'^). He marshals his children (not the

whole company, as 32^'-, though the motive is the same)
under their mothers, and in the reverse order of his affection
for them. —
3. passed on before theni] having previously been in
the rear. —
He approaches his brother with the reverence
befitting a sovereign the sevenfold prostration is a favourite
;
formula of homage in the Tel Amarna tablets *' At the feet :
of my Lord, my Sun, I fall down seven and seven times"

(38 ff. pass.). It does not follow, however, that Jacob
acknowledged himself Esau's vassal (Nestle, MMy 12; Che.
TBI, 405) cf. I Sa. 2o4i.— 4. fell on his neck] 45I* 462^ (J)
;
Lu. is^*'. —5-7. An interesting picture: the mothers with

their little ones come forward in groups to pay their respects
to the grim-visaged warrior, whose name had caused such
terror in the camp.
8-II. The present. — Esau 8. remembers another great
cavalcade camp —which he had met. The *
present' of
32^*^- (E) cannot be referred Esau must have been to, for
told repeatedly what it was for (32^^'-). The word '"i:no points
rather to the arrangement of 32^'- (J). Gu. somewhat in-
geniously explains thus Esau had met the first division of
:
Jacob's company and Jacob, ashamed to avow his original

;
motive, by a happy inspiration now offers this whole camp '
as a present to his brother. 9. Esau at first refuses, but,—

10, II, Jacob insists on his accepting the gift. as one sees the
Read according-ly onnnN for the first 'n. — 4. inptj-'i] The puncta extra-
ordinaria mark some error in the text. Di. observes that elsewhere
(45I* 46^^) 'fell on his neck' is immediately followed by *wept.' The
word should probably be inserted (with ©) after inpanM (so 29^^ cf. ;
48^^').— 133^1] The sing, would be better, unless we add with (&. on'^^.
inpJ5"i inpanî 121 nxis S^ San seem to be variants

!| of which one or other ;
will —
be due to E. 5. pn] with double ace, lit. 'has been gracious to
me (with) them' (G.-K. § ii7flF.) = *has graciously given* (so v."); cf.
Ju. 21^^^ Ps. 119^^. —
7. tPJi] Niph. for the previous Qal. Point e>3^? —
Vmi f]Ov] (& transp. as v.'^.
10. p-'?y'3] see on 18'. This and the preceding |n 'nN^D mark the v.
as J's, in spite of the appellative use of D'n"?N. iia is a doublet of ^°% and—
—
may be assigned to E. naia] blessing,' hence the gift which is meant
'
to procure a blessing i Sa. 2^ 30^, 2 Ki. iS^^ ^^"¥1^ see G-K. §

:
74^;
but uxf&CSSi read better 'nKgn.
— — —
414 MEETING OF JACOB AND ESAU (je)
face of God] with the feelings of joy and reverence with which
one engages in the worship of God. For the flattering com-
parison of a superior to the Deity, cf. i Sa. 29^, 2 Sa. 14^^
ig^. It is possible that the phrase here contains a reminis-
cence of the meaning of P^nfel in 32^^ (We. Di. al.), the
common idea being that '*at Peniel the unfriendly God is
found to be friendly The resemblance suggests a

" (Di.).
diffierent form of the legend, in which the deity who wrestled
with Jacob was Esau the Usous of Phoenician mythology —

(see on 252^; cf. INS, 278).
12-17. T^^ parting. 12. Esau, assuming that they are
no more to be separated, proposes to march in front with his
troop. — 13. But Jacob has other objects and invents
in view,
a pretext for getting rid of his brother's company. vV ni7i;] —

lit. are giving suck upon me\ i.e. their condition imposes
anxiety upon me. — 14. I will proceed by stages (? v.i.\ gently^
according to the pace of the cattle before me]. till I come .
— . .
to Seir] It is, of course, implied that he is to follow in Esau's
track; and the mention of Seir as a possible goal of Jacob's

journey causes difficulty. Meyer {INS, 275 f.) advances the
attractive theory that in J Jacob does not cross the Jordan at
all, but goes round by Seir and the S of the Dead Sea to
Hebron. The question has an important bearing on the

criticism of ch. 34. I5-I7* ^^^ offer of an armed escort
having been courteously declined, Jacob proceeds but a short
13. mVy] sj '?iy, of which only the ptcp. is in use (i Sa. 6'- ^", Is. 40^^,
Ps. 78'^ t). — DipsTi] better with xxx.(&S> D'^hO"}^. On the synt. see G-K.
§ 159 ?'• — ^4- '^'"' '"''^'^^•n**] fflr ivL(XX^'^^ ^^ "^V o^V K-O'TO'- o'xoXt;!' Tri$ rropetja-eioi.
Why Cheyne (405 f.) finds necessary to resolve the text into a series of
it
geographical glosses is not apparent, ^nann, Hithp. is dir. \ey., but is

a natural extension of the Pi. 'guide [to a watering-place?],' Is. 40^'
4910. tDN in the sense of gentleness (2 Sa. I8^ i Ki. ai^^, Is. 8^ Jb. 15^1),
' '
and ^n in the sense of * pace are unexceptionable the 7 of norm with

' :
both words (BDB, 516b). For noaho in the sense of 'property,' we

have examples in Ex. 22'- 1°, i Sa. 15^—15. nrsx] lit. let me set.' The '
sense suggested by the context, leave behind,' is supported by Ex. '
—
10^ (Hoph.). 'ui no"?] The Heb. is peculiar. The obvious rendering
would be, 'Why should I find favour, etc.?' ; but as that is hardly
possible, we must tr. 'Why so? May I find, etc' a very abrupt —
transition. We should at least expect n: nsdx. 17. apyn] The precedence —
of subj. indicates contrast, and shows that the v. continues ^'^
(J). ilDi]
—
XXXIII. I2-I8 4^5
distance, and takes up his quarters at Sukkdth (v.t.). The

name is derived from the booths^ or temporary shelters for
cattle, which he erects there. built himself a house] showing"
that he contemplated a lengthy sojourn.
Here Esau disappears from the histories of J and E. We have already

remarked on the change of tone in this last episode, as compared with the
earlier Jacob-Esau stories of chs. 25, 27. Esau is no longer the rude
natural man, the easy victim of his brother's cunning, but a noble and
princely character, whose bearing is evidently meant to inspire admira-
tion. Jacob, too, is presented in a more favourable light if he is still :
shrewd and calculating, and not perfectly truthful, he does not sink to the
knavery of his earlier dealings with Esau and Laban, but exhibits the
typical virtues of the patriarchal ideal. The contrast betrays a differ-
ence of spirit and origin in the two groups of legends. It is conceivable
that the second group came from sanctuaries frequented by Israelites
and Edomites in common (so Ho. 212) but it is also possible that the
;
two sets reflect the relations of Israel and Edom at different periods of
history. It is quite obvious that chs. 25 and 27 took shape after the
decay of the Edomite empire, when the ascendancy of Israel over the
older people was assured. If there be any ethnological basis to 32.
33,
it must belong- to an earlier period. Steuernagel {Etnw. 105) suggests
as a parallel Nu. 20^*"^^, where the Edomites resist the passage of Israel
through their territory. Meyer (387^) is disposed to find a recollection
of a time when Edom had a powerful empire extending far north on
the E of the Jordan, where they may have rendered assistance to Israel
in the Midianite war {ib. 382), though they were unable ultimately to
maintain their position. If there be any truth in either of these specula-
tions (which must remain extremely doubtful), it is evident that chrono-
logically 32 f. precede 25, 27 ; and the attempt to interpret the series (as
a whole) ethnographically must be abandoned.
18-20. —
Jacob at Shechem. 18. The crossing of the
Jordan is not recorded it is commonly supposed to have
;
see on 11^. —nap was E of the Jordan, but nearer to it than Peniel (Jos.
if, Ju. 8'»- ^- 8). The site is unknown (see Smith, HG, 585 Buhl, GF,;
206, 260; Dri, ET, xiii. 458 a, n. i). The modern Ain es-SdkUf (9 m.
S. of Beisan) is excluded on phonetic grounds, and is besides on the
wrong side of the Jordan.
dW] The rendering given above is pronounced by
18. natf n»y [xxx v\^hw\
We. to be impossible,no doubt on the ground that chv, meaning pro-
perly whole (Dt. 27^), is nowhere else used in the sense safe and
* ' *
sound of a person. Still, in view of Di'?t5' (cf. 28^^ 43^)> and cVeî in Jb.
'
9*, it may be reasonably supposed that it had that sense. (& Jub.
U^ take uhv as a nom. pr. a view which though it derives some plausi-
;
bility from the fact that there is still a village Salim about 4 m. E of
Nabulus (Robinson, BR, ii. 275, 279), implies a sense not consonant
— — '
4l6 JACOB AT SHECHEM (e, P)
taken place at the ford ed-Damiyehy a little S of the Jabbok,

on the road from es-Salt to Shechem. in safety C^.c"^')] after
his escape from Esau, E not having recorded the lengthened
stay at Succoth. On the rendering of uh^ as a proper name,
v.i, —encamped in front of the city] in the vale to the E of it,
where Jacob's well is still shown (Jn. 4^-12^. — 19. The pur-
chase of the ground is referred to in Jos. 24^"^ in the account
of Joseph's burial. It is significant that Israel's claim to
the grave of Joseph is based on purchase, just as its right
to that of —
Abraham (ch. 23). The BnS Hdinor were the
dominant clan in Shechem (ch. 34, Ju. 9^^). a hundred
^^sttdhs] an unknown sum (v.i.). —
20. he set up there an altar]
or more probably (since ^^^ is never used of an altar) a
—
mazzehah. called it El^ God of Israel] the stone being
^
identified with the deity; cf. 2822 357, Ex. if^,]M. 62*. For
heathen parallels, see Mey. INS^ 295.
is here the name of the nation

Israel cf. Jos. 8^**, where Joshua
:
buildsan altar on Ebal (E of Shechem) to Yahwe, God of Israel. The

stone and its name are undoubtedly historical, and go back to an
eariy time when Shechem (or Ebal ?) was the sacred centre of the
confederacy of Israelitish tribes (cf. i Ki. 12^). We cannot therefore
conclude with Di. that the v. refers back to 32^^, and comes from the
same document.
with usage there being no case of a village described as a * city

;
t?/" the neighbouring town (De.). We. {Comp.^ 316^) emends Das':
'Shechem the city of (the man) Shechem.' Procksch accepts the
emendation, but regards the words as a conflation of variants from two
sources (p. 34). (& distinguishes the name of the city {ZiKlfiojv, see on
12^) from that of the man {Lvx^p-, v.^^ 34''^^')' —
P'''] ^s 26^^. 19. no^typ —
(Jos. 24^-, Jb. 42^^ t)] apparently a coin or weight but the etymology is
;
obscure. ffiUSD'^ render lamb ; and it was thought that light had been
'
'
thrown on this traditional explanation by the Aramaic Assuan papyri,

where b'33 (lamb) is used of a coin (of the value of 10 shekels ?) (so Sayce-
Cowley, Aram. Pap. disc, at Assotcan, p. 23). But Lidzbarski {Deutsche
Lzg.y 1906, 3210 ff.) holds that the word there should be read t^ns (found
—
on a Persian weight: PSBA, 1888, 464 fF.). 20, Read nasD for naiD,
—
and consequently n^ for 1*? (We. al.). 'ui Nipn] (5 Kai iireKokâaTo rbv
debv 'IcpaiiK. — Except the clause mx pSD in33 '3 'n2 "wn in v.^^, which
'^^'^
is evidently from P, the whole section may safely be assigned
to E.
— :
XXXIII. 19- XXXIV. 4^7
Ch. XXXIV.— 7%^ Outrage on Dinah.
Two narratives are here combined
I. Shechem, son of Hainor, the 11. Shechem dishonours Dinah,
native princeling", falls in love with but lets her return to her family
Dinah, the daughter of Leah, ab- i^'^* cf. ^'^) ; but continuing- to love
;
ducts her, and keeps her in his her, he appeals toHamor to arrang-e
house (^"^ * cf. '^^). He asks her in
; a marriage (^). Hamor comes to
marriage from her father and speak to Jacob (^), and finds him
brothers, offering' to accept any and his sons together ('). He pro-
conditions they may impose ("• ^'^j. poses not only a marriage between
They raise an objection on the Shechem and Dinah, but a general
score ofcircumcision(^^), but eventu- connubium which would legalise
ally consenton terms not expressed all such unions in the future (^"^°).
in this recension. Shechem com- Jacob's sons agree, on condition
plies with the condition, whatever that all the clan be circumcised (^^•
it was (^^). Simeon and Levi, how- is-is).
Hamor proceeds to the gate
ever, decide that the insult can only of the city, and persuades his people
be wiped out by blood they gain ; to undergo the operation (20-24j^
access to Shechem's house, slay While the fever is on them, the sons
him, and depart with their sister of Jacob rush the city, kill all the
^25f.^^
Their father, fearing an up- males, capture the women and
rising of the country against him, children, and carry off the spoil
reproves them for their rash act, (27-29)_ —
The sequel is perhaps sum-
which they proudly justify i^^' ^^). marised in 35".
The conclusion is lost.
This rough analysis * rests mainly on the material incongruities of

the narrative, viz. (a) In II., after the seduction Dinah is still in the
:
hands of her relatives, " ; but in I. she is in Shechem's house and has to
be rescued by force, ^^. {b) The negotiations are conducted by HSmdr
alone, ^' ^'^^ (II.) but in ^^- ^^ (I.) Shechem is abruptly introduced pleading
;
his own cause, (c) Shechem has already fulfilled the compact, ^^ (I.),
before the people of the city are consulted, ^''•24 {\\,), (^) Simeon and
Levi alone avenge the outrage, and are alone held responsible for the
The parts left unresolved are w.^"^ and "•'. In ^'^j ^* looks like a
* —
mention of Dinah and in ^^ nnN 3db"1 is perhaps tm^'^ nm np'i and
first ; || ;
with a transposition we might read thus II. ^' ^* And Dinah and : . . .
Shechem saw her, ^^ and lay with her. ^^^ And he comforted the
. . .
girl...:!.'* And the soul [of Shechem ] clave to Dinah

^b
and . . .
—
. . .
he took her and violated her. ^ô. And he loved the girl ^ and ' seem . . .
to me to belong to II. rather than I. ; but the indications are conflicting,

and they are possibly redactional vv., inserted to explain the transition
from the sing, in ^ to the pi. in ^. Naturally the redactor has been busy —
smoothing over discrepancies and to him may be attributed D3t5'-nx in
; 1
i3», the whole of ^'^^' ^"^, i:d ddss'i in 20a, o^y for n^y in (cf.^^), 133 d:^-'?ni in
'^'^^
24 1 niDn-nN") and 133 in

;
^^^ and the removal of ^^^^ from '^ (v.u).
;
27
4l8 THE STORY OF DINAH
consequences, ^*- ^^- (I.) but all the sons of Jacob are implicated in the;
sack of the city, 27-29 (H.).

Sources. —
If sijyle alone were decisive, I. mig-ht safely be identified
with J note 3 p3i, ^ (2 -4) t^j, 3- 12 'y^ jn H)iD, ^^ 'ns3i 'jy3:33, ô. In II.,
: ; . ;
Corn, has pointed out some linguistic affinities with E (see the notes on
3*? Vy nm, ^ m*?' ^ nno,
;
21 etc.) but they are insignificant in comparison
;
^'^-
;
with the strongly marked Priestly phraseology of this recension N'tfJ, ^ : ;
t,^
Nets,
5- 13. 27 . ,nx3, 1" ; nat ^3 ds"? '?Dn, is- 22
; y^p and nona, ^3 ; izj "â, 24 . .^j^.
TV nyc -•*
{bis) : comp. the list in Kue. Ges. Ahh. 269 f. These are so
striking that Di. and Dri. assign the narrative unhesitatingly to P, and
all admit that it has undergone a Priestly redaction (Corn, calls attention
to a very similar case in Nu. 31).
in assigning either recension
But there are grave material difficulties
to J or E. Jacob's children are grown up and this implies
(i) In ch. 34, ;
a considerable lapse of time since ch. 33. (2) A bloody encounter with
the natives of the land is contrary to the peaceful ideal of patriarchal
life consistently maintained by J and (hardly less consistently) by E.
(3) Against I. = J, in particular, (a) In J the patriarch is generally named

Israel after 32-^ used throughout. {V) We have seen
; and here Jacob is
reason to believe that in J, Jacob was not of the Jordan at all at this W
time (p. 414). (c) The sons of Jacob would not be found quietly feeding
their flocks at Shechem {yf^^') if ^^^ incident like this had been of recent
occurrence. (4) As regards II. = E, there is less difficulty but on this ;
hypothesis the amalgamation with J must be due to RJ^ and how does ;
it happen that the assumed Priestly redaction is confined to the one com-
ponent? Moreover, the incident is irreconcilable with 48^2 (E). (5)

Finally, if Horite be the true reading in v. 2, we have here a tradition
differing from any of the Pent, documents.
These objections are urged with great force by Meyer, who also
shows that in Gen. there are sporadic traces of a divergent tradition
which ignored the Exodus, and traced the conquest and division of the
land directly to Jacob and his sons (chs. 38. 48"). To this (older)
tradition he assigns ch. 34. The first recension must have taken literary
shape within the Yahwistic school, and the second may have been
current in Elohistic circles but neither found a place in the main docu- ;
ment of the school to which it belonged, and its insertion here was an
afterthought suggested by a supposed connexion with 33^^ (E). This
seems to me the best solution, though it leaves the dual recension, the
amalgamation, and the Priestly redaction unexplained riddles. Calling- —
the two narratives J^ and E'', we divide as follows :
Tx /• _J \ . 3a. 2b*. 3ba. H. 12. 14. 19. 25a. 26. 30. 31^
£x C _ JI •) . 1. 2a. 2b*. 3b^. 4. 5?. 6. 7?. 8-10. 13a. 15-18a. 20-24. 27. (25b). 28. 29^
Comp. We. Comp? 45 f., 314 if. Kue. ThT, 1880, 257 ff. { = Ges. ;
Abhandl. 255 ffi), Oîd. i. 315 f.; Corn. ZATW, xi. 1-15 Mey. INS,î2 ff.; ;
De. 413; Di. 368 ff. Ho. 213 ff. Gu. 326 ff. Stra. 126 f. Pro. 35 f.
; ; ; ;
I-I2. Dinah is seduced by Shechem, and afterwards

sought in marriage. — 2. the Hivvite\ see on lo^^ ; ^ the
I. )c^)^r\ m33] 27^^ (P or R). — 2. 'inn] (S '•xri::^. Confusion of i and n is

— — — —
XXXIV. I-I4 4^9
Hdrite (v.t.). — 3. spoke to (lit. over) the heart] 50^^ (E). The
phrase means 'to comfort/ not *
to woo'; cf. Ho. 2^^,
Is. 402, Ru. 2^3 etc. —4. Comp. 2i2i-24 386, ju. 142. — 5.
kept silence] took no steps to redress the injury (2 Sa. 19^^).
7. wrought scandalotis folly in Israel] a standing- phrase for

crimes of the kind here indicated (Dt. 22^1, Ju. 20^-^^; cf.
Ju. 1923^-, 2 Sa. i3^2ff.)| though in Israel' is an anachronism. *
np3^ is never mere foolishness, but always disgraceful conduct
or language. such things are not done] 20® 292^. —8-10.

HSmor, as prince, takes a broad view : not content with
arranging this particular marriage, he proposes an amalga-
mation of the two races thinking apparently that the ad-
;
vantage to Jacob would be sufficient compensation for the

offence. —
Almost verbally identical with Dt. 7^ (cf. Jos.
9.
23^2j^ —
II) 12. Shechem's offer relates only to his own private
affair. Ask me ever so much] lit. Multiply upon me.' *
The Hebrew law of compensation for seduction is given in

Ex. 22^^^- —inb, the price paid to the parents (Ex. 22^^^*, i Sa.
1 825), and iîp (so only here), the gift to the bride, are virtually
distinguished in 24^^.
13-17. The answer. — 13a. with duplicity] In this recen-
sion (E^) the requirement of circumcision is merely a pretext
to render the Shechemites incapable of self-defence. 14. —

Here, on the contrary (J''), the family acts in good faith, and
common ; but ffi deserves consideration as the harder reading- ; and

also because the only other place where (& has nn for MT 'in is Jos. 9'',
a passage somewhat similar to this (see Mey. INS^ 33i)« It is a slight

confirmation of ffi that animal names are frequent among the IJorite
clans (36^*'^-), and H^mor means 'he-ass.' n'cj] a favourite word of P;
cf. 23^ 25^®.

17^^" —
nx 12^ iy? 35^2 etc.)] The Mass. always point the dn in
this —
phrase as not. ace. 3. "jp] see 24^^ 5. Nsp] in the sexual sense —
yyi3. 27^ Ezk. iS"'* 11- ^^ 22^H; otherwise very frequent in P. 7. di/OE'd] —
occupies an unusual position and there are other small syntactic
;
anomalies in 5.7,_8. 3 ptJ'n] Dt. f lo^^ 21^^ Ps. 9i^'*t ct. pan, v.^.— On ;
the casus pendens^ G-K. § 143 h. —

9. jnnnn] 'enter into the relation of }nn
and jnn' (i Sa. iS^^^-, i Ki. 3^), and more generally 'form marriage
alliance' (Dt. f, Jos. 23^^ Ezr. 9").— lO. nno] as 4234(E) but cf. 23^6 (P). ;
— imNm] Niph. in this sense peculiar to P (47^^ Nu. 32^, Jos. 22^- ^^).
12. jnDl nno] ffi- tt\v <pepvi\v.
13b occupies a syntactically impossible position, and must be deleted

as a redactional gloss. n3Ti joins on to ^^ 14. (&. koX itiro.v avrois —
— — —— —
420 THE STORY OF DINAH
the compact is violated by Simeon and Levi alone. that were

a reproach to us\ Jos. 5^. Circumcision is regarded as a
tribal custom, which it would be a disgrace to infringe. That
the custom actually existed from the earliest time among the
Hebrews is extremely probable (p. 296 f.); but the fact that
both J (Ex. 4^5) and E (Jos. 5^^) record its introduction in the
age of the Exodus is an additional proof that this chapter
follows an independent tradition. 15. Continuing ^2*. Only —
on this condition will we consent^ referring primarily to the
—
conmibium. 16. become one people^ A result really desired
by the Shechemites, but not seriously contemplated by the
sons of Jacob.
18-24. The condition accepted. — 19. the ^nost honoured
member of hisfamily} emphasising the greatness of his sacri-
fice, and the strength of attachment to Dinah. 2I-23.
his
Hamor naturally says nothing of the personal matter, but
dwells on the advantages the clan will derive from union
with the Israelites. The men are already on frie7idly terms
with them ; the land is spacious enough ; and by adopting
circumcision they will obtain a great accession to their
wealth.
25-31. The vengeance of the Hebrews.— 25. on the
third day] when the inflammation is said, in the case of
adults, to be at its height (De. Di.). S. and L,^ the brothers of
Dinah\ cf. 49^. In ch. 29 f., Leah had four other sons who
were as much full brothers of Dinah as these two. Was
there another tradition, according to which Simeon and Levi
were the only sons of Leah (so Mey. INSy 286^, 426 f.)?
26. nin ''*h\ according to the usage of war without quarter :
Si'/tecbz' KaX Aeiu ol ddeXipol Aeiuas viol 8^ Aei'as kt\. — an intellig'ent anticipa-
tion of critical results (cf. ^') ? — Or is this the original text ? — n"7ny ^^ icj'n 'n
for '
uncircumcised '
does not recur. — 15. mm] Either (BDB) impf. Niph.,
or (G-K. § 72 /f) intrans. impf. Qal of^ni^, 'consent' (22-23^ 2 Ki. la^f).
— '1J1 '??3n'?] as 17^^
19. nnx] G-K. § 64 d. —21. D't nam (ffi^ TrXareta)] broad on both sides
*
'
;
22I8 [3321, I
Ju. l8l^ Is. Ch. 4^0, Neh. f, Ps. i04-'«]t.— 24. Between i'?D'i
and nDr'?D] ffi^ ins. tt]u crdpKa ttjs d/cpo/Sucrrtas avroSp. — 'ui '«S'"'?3] cf. 23^"' ^^.
The repetition of the phrase

avoided by dSc. is
27-29 are regarded by Di. as a late interpolation and this is per- ;
haps necessary if the second account is to be identified with P. The

— — a
XXXIV. IS-3I 421
(cf. 2 Sa. ii25). and went oui\ Evidently this is the close
of the exploit. —27. came upon the slah{\ Cf. JJ Quibus
irruerunt super occisos ccBteri filii Jacob.
egressisy That is
perhaps the sense intended by the redactor. But, to say
nothing of the improbability of two men being able to kill
all the males of the city, the second narrative (E"") must
have given an independent account of the attack on Shechem.

25^ must be transferred to this v. ; and another word must
be substituted for DvPn
Cf. the similar phrase-
{v.i.). —28, 29.
ology of Nu. 31^-11 (P)._3o, 31 (continuing 26). Jacob
rebukes Simeon and Levi, not for their treachery and cruelty,
but for their recklessness in exposing the whole tribe to the
vengeance of the Canaanites. I am few in number] it is the
tribal, not the individual, consciousness which finds expres-
sion here.
The legend we can scarcely doubt, an

at the basis of ch. 34 reflects,
incident of the Hebrew
settlement in Canaan. Shechem is the eponymus
of the ancient city of that name, and HSmor of the tribe dwelling- there ;
Hamor is the father of Shechem, because the tribe is older than its
possession of the city. Jacob, in like manner, stands for the Israelites,
who are nomads ranging- the country round Shechem, and on friendly
terms with its inhabitants. Whether Dinah was a weak Hebrew clan
threatened with absorption by the Hamorites is not so certain it is ;
more natural to suppose that a literal outrage of the kind described was
the cause of the racial quarrel which ensued.* There are two historic —
events which seem to stand in some connexion with the narrative the —
Hebrew conquest of Shechem, and the dissolution of Simeon and Levi
as tribal entities, (i) The conquest of Shechem is presupposed in Jos. 24 ;
but it is remarkable that it is never mentioned either among the cities

captured by the Israelites, or among those which remained independent.
The account of its destruction by Abimelech in Ju. 9 appears to imply
possibility that the vv. have been glossed by some one who had Nu. 31 in
mind not to be denied.
is —
27. D^'^Vn] lit. 'pierced,' means either 'slain'
(Nu. 19^^ 318. 19 etc.), or (rarely) fatally wounded (La. 2^^ ^^.c.) neither
' '
;
sense being suitable here. Gu. suggests D-'pn, 'sick' D'3N3, v.^^ 29. ||
—
«a;i ^3^] Remove athnach to 13B'
( ^J naiJ') and omit i before riN (cf. Aiiffi^).
— n'a3]coll. ; but.S |A-»j-Q^ (& iv ry irSXet Kal Saa ^v 4v rais oidais. —30.
13j;] = Ar. 'a>îVa, 'be turbid, 'in Heb. lit. 'make turbid ' = ' undo,' —
strong word cf. Jos. 6^^ 7^^, i Ki. i8^^^- ^£3D0 'no] lit. men of number,'
; — '
numerable, and therefore few Dt. 4^' 33", Jer. 44-^ etc.
;
* A singularly apposite and interesting modern parallel is quoted by

Bennett (p. 318 f.) from Doughty, Arabia Deserta, ii. 114.
—
422 JACOB IN CANAAN (e, J, p)
that it had been continuously in the possession of the Bne HSmSr down
to that time. On the other hand, the poetic frag-ment Gn. 48^^ attributes
the conquest to Jacob himself, but as an honourable feat of arms un-
stained by the treachery which is so prominent in ch. 34. How these
conflicting-data are to be reconciled, we can hardly conjecture. The
differences are too g-reat to justify the opinion that 48^2 ^nd 34 are
merely legendary reflexions of the historic fact recorded in Ju. 9. Yet
it is scarcely credible that Shechem was thrice conquered, twice from
the same people under circumstances of general similarity. One chief

objection to identifying 34 with Ju. 9 Is the prominence of Simeon and Levi
in J*. We may either (with Steuernagel) put back the incident (which
may after all have been an unsuccessful attack on Shechem) to the
early days of the Hebrew migration, while Simeon and Levi were
independent and still migratory tribes or (with Mey.) assume that the
;
story of Dinah originated near the Simeonite territory in the S, and was
afterwards transferred to Shechem because of certain points of affinity
with the historic overthrow of that city under Abimelech. (2) The dis- —
persion of Simeon and Levi is referred to In the Blessing of Jacob (49^- '),
as the consequence of deeds of violence, disapproved by the conscience
of the nation. It is universally assumed by critics that the two passages
are variations of the same theme hence it is held by many (We. Sta.
;
Gu. Steuernagel, al.) that J^ went on to tell how the Canaanltes actually
retaliated by the slaughter of Simeon and Levi, while the other brothers
escaped. That is just possible but if so, the narrative departs very
;
widely from the prevailing tradition, according to which S. and L. not

only survived, but went down into Egypt with the rest of the family.
And there room for doubt whether the curse on S. and L. in ch. 49 Is
is
the result ofany particular action of these two tribes (see pp. 516 f.).
The one point, indeed, which stands out with some degree of evidence
from these discussions is that there was a form of the patriarchal
tradition which knew nothing of the sojourn in Egypt, and connected
the story of the conquest with the name of Jacob.
Ch. XXXM.—Jacob in Canaan (E, J, P).
The compiler's interest in the story of Jacob would seem

to have flagged after he had brought him safely back to
Canaan and he hurries to a close with a series of frag-
;
mentary excerpts from his sources a second visit to Bethel, :
with the death and burial of Deborah, ^-^^ the birth of ;
Benjamin and death of Rachel, ^^"^^ Reuben's incest, ;
21. 22a 22b-26

2, list of Jacob's sons,
. ti^g death and burial of .
Isaac, 27-29^
Sources. — The P sections are easily recognised by their phraseology,

viz. 6a* 9-13. 16. 22b-26. 27-29_
The last contlnuous extract from P was 281-^
;
and the connecting links are 292^- ^sb- 29 ôâ. 9b. 22a îisais^fib 331^/3, The
— — — —
XXXV. 1-5 423
natural position of 35^"*''^^ is between 30^^* and 31" (see v. 2') and this ;
transposition adopted by We. {Prol.^ 327) but perhaps a still better

is ;
position would be in 37'-^ (see p. 443). A more thorough readjustment is

proposed by Gu. 28^-'' 356a. n-isa. 15 2924. isb. 29 ô^^. 9b. 22a
:
3ii8a^y5b
^f^^'"^^
^îsa^ 35"" ^^"^*. This division of the Bethel-theophany into two, one on
^*''
the way to Mesopotamia and the other after the return (as in E), is very
attractive, and relieves some critical difficulties, as shown in the notes
on9«f-.— To E belong ^-5- 6b-8.i4 . ^f. o-n'^^n],
i- e. 7 .
^^^^ 3. 7 .
^^^d, ^^ ; njjn 'n^
2-
"» (cf. Jos. 242- and the reference in v.i to 282"ff-.— 16-20 are also from
20. 23) .
E in the main, though perhaps with J variants (nnj^D, 20 ^f. the retro- .
spective reference in 48^). —The only purely Yahwistic section is

î* 22*
('?Nnt5" bis),
Bethel re-visited the death of Deborah.

1-8 4- 14. :
— I.reminded of his vow at Bethel (28^^^-), and

Jacob is
commanded to build an altar there. go up] From Shechem

to Bethel there is a continuous ascent of over 1000 ft. and
d7vell would almost seem that Bethel is to be
there] It
Jacob's permanent residence and this (though contradicted ;
by v.^^) would be in harmony with the tenor of the Elohistic

tradition, which closely associates this patriarch with the
chief Ephraimite sanctuary. — 2. Jacob purifies his household
for Put away the strange gods]
a solemn act of worship.
The same words spoken under the same tree by Joshua
(24^3 [E]), point, it would appear, to the memory of a great
national renunciation of idolatry at Shechem in the early
history of Israel (see v.*). A reference to the Teraphim
stolen by Rachel does not exhaust the significance of
(31^^)
the notice. — 3. The use of the old name 7^? here and v.^ (cf.
v.'^) is noticeable. — 4. the earrings (see on 24^^)] Objects of
superstition, being used as amulets, and in false worship
(Ho. 2^^, cf. Ju. 8^^*^-). the terebinth near Shechem] See on
12^. The burial of Idolatrous emblems under this sacred
tree has some traditional meaning which we cannot now
explain. — 5* ^ terror of God] a iraviKov Set/xa (De.) ; cf.
Ex. 2327, I Sa. 1415, 2 Ch. 1413 etc.
V.*^ presupposes an incident like that recorded in ch. 34. The inter-
I. ^xn'D] ^ €15 Thv rbirov Bai&rjX is not unlikely to be original (cf. 28"
12*). — 3. ntyyNl] (fSc HB-pi. —4 end] <& +<ai d-mbXea-ev avra ^ws rrjs (r^/xepov
}}ixipa%. — 5. lyo'l] (& Kal i^TJpev'l(rpar]\ iK Zikiju-wv. — apy] (Si'lcrpa-^X.
— — —— — —
changfe of subject from *

Jacob to'
*
the sons of Jacob makes it hig'hly '
probable that v.^ is either redactional (Kue.), or belongs to a different

stratum of E.
6a (P). See below. — 7. The desig-nation of the place (i.e.
the sanctuary : 1 2^ 28^^) as 'El Beth' el is not confirmed by

any other OT allusion. Partial analogies may be found in
such place-names as ASteroth-Karnaim, Nebo, Baal-H^zor,
Baal-Gad, etc., where the name of the deity is extended to
the sacred precincts (Gu. 248) ; but the text is not above
suspicion. there the gods had revealed themselves to hirn\
The pi. vb. together with the use of the art. suggests that
the sentence preserves a more polytheistic version of the
Bethel-leg-end than 28^^ —one in which the ' angels of God '
were spoken of as simply C"'n'Sx. — g^ 14. The death and

burial of Deborah. helow Beth' et\ means apparently '
to the
S of Bethel.' ufider the oak] or '
sacred tree on 12^). '
(see
—tree of weeping] But t;.z. — 14. For the grounds on which
this V. is connected with ^, see the footnote ad set up
loo. —
a mazzehah] So v.^^ at the grave of Rachel. These monu-
ments came to be regarded as simple grave-stones but ;
were doubtless originally objects of worship, as the next

clause indicates. poured out a libation on it] The libation
was in the first instance an offering to the dead, according
to a custom attested among many ancient peoples, and found "'^
in Catholic countries at the present day. poured oil] 28^^.
6a. nn"?] See on 28^^. The cl. is an amalgam of P and E. —7. D^poh]
(& TO tvoixa Tov rbirov. — Vxn'a "?«] (&'S3:> "^Nnu. — 8. i^pm] (& om. fhn]
see on 12^ — ni33] 'weeping.' The perhaps confirmed by D'33
text is
(weepers), Ju. 2^, which may be the same place. But though D'Da might
plausibly be regarded as a corruption of D'xp? (2 Sa. 5'^''^*, Ps. 84'), it is
difficult to think that ni33 is so sacred tree of the baka-trees is an
:
'
'
improbable combination (see v. Gall, CSt. 103).
9. iiy] (& + iv Kovâ. idn] ux(& + — d'hSn. — 10. ffi- simplifies by omit-
ting apy icv and "jKnc" idb- nx N-ipn. 12. —
a schol. in Field).
'nm] 5 'T\]}'2v;i (so
— 14. The V. cannot possibly be from P, who recognises no mazzebas,
* Egyptians (Erman, LAE, 307), Persians (Her. vii. 43), Greeks

(Hom. //. xxiii. 196, Od. xi. 26 ff.), Arabs (We. Heid^ 182 f.). It is not
mentioned in OT, but food-offerings to the dead are referred to in Dt.
2614 (To. 4", Sir. 30I8).
— — —
XXXV. 6-15 425
The notice of Deborah is many ways perplexing-. The nurse who
in
accompanied Rebekah (24^^) nameless, and there is nothing to lead us
is
to expect that she was to be an important figure in Hebrew legend.

How she could have come into Jacob's family is quite inexplicable and ;
the conjectures that have been advanced on this point are all puerile.
Moreover, the sacred tree referred to is in all probability identical with
the palm-tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in Ju. 4'*'-.
'
'
There seems to have been a confusion in the local tradition between the
famous prophetess and the nurse and the chief mystery is how the
;
name of Rebekah got introduced in this connexion at all. If we could

suppose with Cheyne (417 f) that ni33 should be nib? and that this is an
alternative form of npni, so that the real name of the tree was *
Tree of
Rebekah,' we might
be a step nearer a solution. The identity of the
two trees would then have to be abandoned. It is, however, an unsafe
argument to say that a nurse could not have been conspicuous in
* '
legend cf. the grave of the nurse of Dionysus at Scythopolis, in Pliny,

:
HN, V. 74 (De. Gu.).
9, 10. JacQiilsâame^chaiiged (P).— Comp. 3228'- (j)._

'when he came fro7n Paddan 'Ard?n] On Gu.'s rearrangement
(p. 423 above), there is nothing to suggest Be.thel as the
scene of .the revelation. It is a faint echo of ^2^^^- from
which every dement of local tradition, down to the name of

the sanctuary, has been eliminated.
6a, 11-13, 15. The blessing transmitted to Jacob:
P's parallel to 28ioff-.— II, 12. 'El Shaddai] see on lyi.—For
other expressions in the vv., cf. 17^- ^- ^^ 28^- * 46^^ 48"*. 13a.
God went up from him\ 13b is an awkward continu-
as 17^'^.
ation, and has probably arisen through dittography from v.^^.

— 15. The naming of the place, as 28^^.
That the outward journey, and that "*•
section refers to Jacob's
describe a different theophany on his return, is probable from the follow-
ing considerations (i) The analogy of the older tradition (J E). (2) in33
:
and no ritual worship of any kind before the Sinaitic legislation. As a

part of the Bethel-narrative, it is unintelligible in E, who has already
described the origin of the mazzebah there (28^*^), and still more in J,
who does not sanction mazzebas at all. The impression that the scene
is Bethel depends solely on the words inx Dipon, which can easily be —
excised, as a gloss from ^^. The suggestion that the v. continues ^ is due
to Cornill (ZATW, xi. 15 ff.), and seems the most satisfactory solution
of the problem. t|dj] 2 Ki. i6^^- ^^ is the only other instance of the word
before Jeremiah, though the vb. appears in 2 Sa. 23^^, Ho. g'*. In Jer.,
Ezk. (20^^), and II Isa, it is an accompaniment of heathenish worship its ;
legalisation for the worship of the temple appears in Ezk. 45^'^ and P.
Its mention here is a proof of the great antiquity of the notice (Corn. I.e.).
— —
D^ê pso (^) is superfluous after we have read {^'^) that he had reached a
spot ]l}i^ 'n3. (3) That two consecutive vv. Q^- ^^) should commence with
'n i"? unnatural even in P (so KS.). (4) The self-disclosure of the
nON'i is
divine speaker (^^) must introduce the revelation (cf. 17^). (5) The ny of
v.^ (generally treated as redactional) presupposes a former revelation.
The one difficulty in this theory of Gu. is to imagine an adequate reason
for the dislocation of P.
16-20. Rachel dies in child-birth (E).— 16. The event

took place on the journey from Bethel to 'Ephrath^ an un-
known locality in the later territory of Benjamin (see after
v.^^). V]. This also is a son for thee\ So the nurse cheers the
dying woman by recalling her prayer at the birth of Joseph
(302*). — With her
last breath Rachel names her son
18.
Ben-dni\ but the father, to avert the omen, calls him Bin-
yamin. The pathos of the narrative flows in sympathy with
the feelings of the mother a notice of Jacob's life-long grief
:
for the loss of Rachel is reserved for 48'^. 19. on the way to —
'Ephrath\ The next clause, that is Bethlehem^ is a gloss (see
Sta. ZATW, iii. i ff.).— 20. See on v.^*.
The site of Rachel's grave is determined by i Sa. 10^ (on the

border of Benjamin, between Ramah and Gibeah) and Jer. 31^^ (cf. 40^).
Christian tradition places it about a mile N of Bethlehem, in accordance
with the gloss at the end of ^^. This, however, rests on a confusion of
Ephrath and the better known clan-name D"'— n— nncN, which is always
connected with Bethlehem. It is unnecessary to assume a divergence
of ancient tradition regarding the site. The beautiful verse of Jeremiah
31^^ shows how vivid and persistent was the hold of these legends on
the popular mind. —
The birth of Benjamin in Canaan is interpreted by
many critics to mean that this tribe, unlike the rest, was formed after
16. ^NnOD "lyo'i] ffi^ 'ATrdpas 5^ 'I. +l7ri?êi' tt]v <jKt\vT\v avrov irriKeiva tov
irvpyov Tadep showing the influence of the theory that iiy SiJD
(fr. ^^),
was at Jerusalem, which Jacob would naturally pass on the way to

Bethlehem. yinri mna] 48'^, 2 Ki. 5^^t (without art.). Apparently a
measure of distance (5 a parasang) but nothing is certain. Ace. ;
to Hoffmann (GGA, 1890, 23 ff".), 'as far as one can see.' 17. nna'pnn —
(Hi.) tffpn^ (Pi.) in ^^,
II —
possibly variants from E and J. Another trace —
of J is ni DJ, pointing back to 302^^ —
18. 'JiN-p] 'son of my sorrow,' from
pK, 'trouble.' Not improbably it is an obsolete proper name, having
some connexion with "lyiN, a city and valley in Benjamin (Ben. 325 Che. ;
420). —
I'D^'p] Usually understood as 'son of good fortune,' the right
hand being in antiquity the lucky or fortunate side. The original

meaning is probably son of the south (cf. i Sa. 23^''- ^, Ps. 89^^ etc.),
* '
Benjamin being the most southerly of the Rachel tribes.

— : ;
XXXV. i6-26 427

the conquest of the country (We. Sta. Guthe, al.) Steuern. goes further, :
and infers that the rise of Benjamin brought about the dissolution of
the Rachel tribe. But all such speculations are precarious. The name
Benjamin, however, does furnish evidence that this particular tribe was
formed in Palestine {y.i. on ^®).
21, 22a. Reuben's incest (J).— 21. Tower of the Flock\

Such towers would be numerous in any pastoral country
and the place here referred to is unknown. Mic. 4^ proves
nothing and the tradition which locates it near Bethlehem
;
rests on this passage. The order of J's narrative (see p.

414) would lead us to seek It E of the Jordan, where the
tribe of Reuben was settled. 22a. and when Israel heard]

Probably a temporal clause, of which the apodosis has been
intentionally omitted.
The story, no doubt, went on to tell of a curse pronounced on Reuben,

which explained his loss of the birthright (so Gu. otherwise Di.). The ;
crime is referred to in 49^. The original motive is perhaps suggested

by the striking parallel in //. ix. 449 ff. (Gu.)
6s tioi TraWaKtdos irepixfjoo'aTO KaWcK6fj.oio'
rr]P ai/Tos (pCKieaKev, ariixdêaKe 5' Slkoltiv,
fnjTep' efJL-qv ij 5' alkv ifxk XiaaâKero yoijvwv^

iraWaKidi irpo[xiyTivaL, 'iv ixQ'HP^'-^ y^povra.
Note that In 30^^- also, Reuben plays a part in the restoration of his
mother's conjugal rights. — An ethnographic reading of the legend finds
its historic basis in some humiliation inflicted by Reuben on the Bilhah-
tribe, or one of its branches (Dan or Naphtali). See on 49*.
22b-26. A list of Jacob's sons (P).— In two points

the list deviates from the tradition of JE (chs. 29. 30) : The
children are arranged according to their mothers ; and
the birth of Benjamin is placed in Mesopotamia. Other-
wise the order of JE is preserved: Leah precedes Rachel;
but Rachel's maid precedes Leah's. — On the position of the
section in the original Code, see pp. 423, 443.
22a. The double accentuation means that ^^ was treated by the

Mass. sometimes as a whole sometimes as a half; the former for
v.,
private, the latter for liturgical reading (Str. 129 Wickes, Prose ;
Accents, 130). Note the *gap in the middle of the verse,' which (& fills
—
up with Kai irovr^pbv icftavr) ivavriou avroO. VxntJ"] The name, instead of
Jacob, is from this point onwards a fairly reliable criterion of the
—
document J in Gen. 26. n"?'] au. and Heb. MSS n"?'.
— —— ;
428 EDOMITE GENEALOGIES (p*)
27-29. The death of Isaac (P). — In JE Isaac was

at the point of death when Jacob fled from Esau; whereas,
according to the chronolog-y of P, he survived for 80 years.
An equally remarkable divergence from the earlier tradition
is seen in Esau's living- on with his father in Hebron (see
on 32^), and the unbroken friendship between him and
Jacob. —
Mamre^ Kiryath- Arba\ Hehrdn. See 13^^ 23^.
27.
29. Cf. 25^-^. —
Isaac is buried hy Esau and Jacob his sons^
as Abraham by Isaac and Ishmael (25^). P always lays
stress on the harmony of the patriarchal family life.
Ch. XXXVI. Edomite Genealogies^ etc. (partly P).
The chapter consists of seven (or eight) sections: I.
Esau's wives and children, ^~^ ; II. His migration to

Mount Seir, ^-8 ; ni. A list of Esau's descendants, ^-^^
IV. An enumeration of clans or clan-chiefs of Esau, ^^^^^

;
V. Two Horite lists : a genealogy, ^^"^s^

2,n^ ^ list of clans,
29.30. VI. The kings of Edom, ^1-39; yil. A second list of
*o-43^
clans of Esau, T\\^ lists are repeated with variations
in I Ch. 1^5-54.
The chapter evidently embodies authentic information regarding-

the history and ethnology of Edom. Whether the statistics were
compiled by Israelite writers from oral tradition, or are the scanty
remains of a native Edomite literature, it is naturally impossible to
determine the early development of political institutions in Edom
;
makes the latter hypothesis at least credible (see Meyer, INS, 329,
383 f.).
Analysis. —A section Tcrhrx n'?Ni would, if homogeneous, be

headed
unhesitatingly ascribed to P
but the repetition of the formula (v.^)
;
throws doubt on its unity, and betrays the hand of a redactor. The
phraseology of P is most apparent in II. and VII., but can be detected
occasionally elsewhere {^'- ^'^- 1"*- ^^b- isb. sob i^^ j^ i., m., and V.). The .
crucial difficulty is the contradiction as to Esau's wives between I. and
27. ymN.T nnp] Rd. perhaps yann nnnp (Kit.). —jn^n] ffir^ + IV" pN3.
28. pnr] (K + 'n ntTN (as 257). —29 end] S ^Ql^] r^l? li*^^^
t-jGlQ.O|. — In P's chronology, Jacob at his father's death had reached
the age of 120 years he was 40 years old when he
(cf. 35^^ with 25^^) :
set out for Paddan Aram. The interval of 80 years has to be divided
between his sojourn with Laban and his subsequent residence with
Isaac but in what proportions we have no data to determine.
;
;
XXXVI. 1-5 429

2(y^ 28^ (see on w.^"^). On this point I., III., and IV. hang^ together;
and these sections are excluded, there remains nothing- that can be
if
plausibly assigned to P except II. and VII. (so We. Kue. Ho. Gu. al.).
The argument for reducing P's share in the chapter to this minimum
rests,however, on the assumption that the Code is the compilation of
a single writer, who cannot be supposed to lapse into self-contradiction.
The facts seem to point to a redactional process and a divergence of
tradition within the Priestly school and I am inclined to think that in
;
I. (?), and IV. we have excerpts from the book of Toledoth incor-
III.,
porated in P, whose main narrative will have included 26^ 28^, and in
which 35-** 36^'^ 37^ may have read continuously. VII. must then be
rejected as a late compilation in which the style of the Toledoth is
successfully imitated (so Meyer). —
As regards V. and VI. little can be
said. The former might well have been part of the Toledoth the ;
latter is unique in Gen., and there are no positive reasons for assigning
it to J (so most) or any other source.
Esau's wives and sons. The scheme here pro-

1-5. —
jected supplies thecommon framework of the two Edomite
genealogies, ^~^* and ^^~^^, except that in the following
sections the second and third wives exchange places. These
marriages and births are said to have taken place in the
land of Canaan^ before the migration to Se'ir but the fact ;
that 'Oholibamah is a Horite (see below), indicates an ab-

sorption of Horite clans in Edom which would naturally
have followed the settlement in Se'ir. — Here we come on
a difference of tradition regarding the names and parentage
of Esau's wives.
According to 26^^ 28^ (P), the three wives are (a) Y^Mdith bath-
BS'eri, the Hittite ; {b) Basemath bath-'Elon, the Hittite (jaxiS^cS Hivvite)
(c) Mahalath bath-Yisma'el, sister of Nebayoth. Here they are (a)
'Ada bath-'Elon, the Hittite; (6) Oholibdmah bath-Anah, the Horite;
'
(c) Basemath balh-YiSma el, sister of NSbayoth. The confusion is too

great to be accounted for naturally by textual corruption, though that
may have played a part. We can only conjecture vaguely that vv.^'^^
I. DnN Nin] probably a gloss (cf. v.^-^^); but the persistency with
which the equivalence is asserted is itself instructive. Esau and Edom
are really distinct names (see p. 359f.)j and P has no legendary identi-
fication of them, such as 25^**. Hence the connexion is established in
two ways Esau = Edom (^- ^' ^^) and Esau the father of Edom i^-^^).
: ; —
2. np"? iry] 'had taken,' as already recorded (26^"* 28**). pyn:^ nn] juu.©^ —
Vp ;deleted by Ho. and Gu. as a gloss. But in clan names gender is
not always carefully distinguished and the writer probably took r\^^
;
as fern. In v.^ 'Oholibamah is herself one of the sons of 'Anah. — 'inn]

— — — — —
represent a diiferent tradition from 26^* 28' ; and that in *'"* a clumsy
and half-hearted attempt has been made to establish some points
of contact between them. If we accept the 'inn of xxx, etc., in 26^^, the
two traditions agree in the main ethnological point, that the Edomite
people was composed of Hittite (? Canaanite), Hivvite (? Horite), and
Ishmaelite elements.
—
On the Names. (a) r\'\}) is the name of one of Lamech's wives see :
—
on 4^^. (6) nD3''7nN ('OXi/Se/xd, 'EXLêfid, etc.). Somewhat similar com-
pounds with Vhn are found in Phoenician ('?y3'?nN, iSo'^nN) and Sab.
(nnni''?nN, '^x'^nN) as well as in Heb. (3N''?nN, Ex. 31^; nT^nx, Ezk. 23^^-)
(see Gray, HPN, 246^). The first component is presumably Ar. and
Sab. ahl, family
'
* the second ought by analogy to be a divine name,
'
;
though none such is known. It is philolog-ically probable that names

of this type were originally clan-names and 'nx is taken from the old;
list of Horite clans (v.^^, cf. ^^). —

(c) nDtJ'3 (for which ux always reads
n'?nD, 28^), if from sj D«^3, 'smell sweetly,' is likely to have been a
favourite woman's name, but recurs only i Ki. 4^^ of a daughter of

Solomon. On njy and Jiy^î, see on v.^ the obvious connexion with :
that V. makes it practically certain that 'in in v.- is a mistake for nn.
—
On the sons, see below. It is pointed out by Ho. (187) that both in
'"^^ and ^^"^^ the 'Oholibamah branch holds a somewhat exceptional
position. This may mean that it represents hybrid clans, whereas the
other two are of pure Edomite stock that it is a later insertion in the
:
lists si ess likely.
6-8. Esau's migration to Se'ir.—6. Cf. 12^ (34^^).—
and his daughters] None are mentioned in ^~^. to the land of

Setr] So we must read with ^. y. The motive for the
separation is the same as that which led to the parting of
Abraham and Lot (13^*), implying that Esau had lived at
Hebron after Jacob's return; contrast J, 32^ 33^^* ^^«
— 8. the
mountain of Seir\ the mountainous country H of the Arabah,
the southern part of which is now called el-êrd and the
northern Gehal (Buhl, Edom. 28 ff.). The /««i/Se'ir includes
the whole Edomite territory as far as Kadesh (Nu. 20^^). W
See on 14^ 27^^^-, and below on v.ô.
9-14. The genealogy of Esau. 9, 10. For the double —
heading nn^n 'ni followed by TWCV 'n% cf. 25^^!.^ Esau the
father of Edom] see footnote on v.^. It is strange that
except in these glosses Edom is never the eponymus of the
j35 g39 23^<''-, 2 Ch. ii^^t. —

6. px-'?N givcs no sense, and to insert nnrtK
({JT^'F) is inadmissible without a chang-e of text. xxx(& jyj^ pND is pos-

sible ; but it is simplest to follow 5> ^'i'«^' pN'*?**. 'jejd] on account of,' *
as 6^^ 27* etc.

1 — —
XXXVI. 6-1 431
nation, although it appears to have been the name of a god

(d-iK 12Vy 2 Sa. 6^0) _ij ff^ The total number of the tribes,
excluding the bastard 'Amalek^ is 12, as in the cases of
Israeland Ishmael (25^2-16^^ The sons of 'Oholibamah are,
however, put on a level with the grandsons of the other two
wives (so v.i^). The list may be tabulated thus :
(a) Adah. (6) Basemath. {c) 'Oholibamah.
£liphaz [Timna]. RS'ii el.
I. Teman. 2. Omar. 6. Nahath. 7. Zerah. 10. Y6'(a§. 11. Ya'lam.

3. Zgpho. 4. Ga'tam, 8. Sammah. 9. Mizzah. 12. Korah.
5. K6naz.
['Amalek].
The Names. — (a) T£3''?n] Known otherwise only as the name of the
oldest and wisest of Job's friends (Jb. tP- etc.), probably borrowed from
this list. — (i) jD'n (Gat/idj/)] Frequently mentioned as a district of Edom

(Jer. 497- 20, Ezk. 25I3, Am. i^ Ob. ^, Hab. f\ famous for its wisdom,
the homeof Eliphaz (Jb. 2^^) and of the third king- of Edom (v.^^). A
village bearing the Greek name, 15 Roman m. from Petra, is mentioned
in OS, 260 ;
—
but the site is now lost. (2) hdin {'Q/xap, 'Q/xdv), (3) isi-
(Sw0ap, I Ch. •Es), (4) Dnyj (ToOo/x, etc.) are quite unknown, unless
Sw0a/3 be the original of Job's third friend. (5) Tjp] the eponym of the —
Kenizzites, the group to which Kaleb (the ' dog '-tribe, settled in Hebron)
and Othniel belonged (Nu. 32^^ 14s- ^^
Jos. 15", Ju. i^^ 3^'^^). The
incorporation of these families in Judah is a typical example of the
unstable political relations of the southern tribes between Israel and
Edom, a fact abundantly illustrated from the lists before us. The once —
powerful people of phou (see on 14'') is here described as descended from
yjDn, a Horite clan absorbed in Edom (vv.^^- ô)^ of which nothing- else
is known. The reference may be to an offshoot of the old Amalekites
who had found protection from the Edomites. (b) '?Niyn {'FayovrjX)]
' Friend of God (?) is one of the names of Moses' father-in-law (a
'
Midianite) (Ex. 2^% Nu. lo^^), also that of a Gadite (Nu. i^* 2^"^) and of
a Benjamite (i Ch. 9^).— (6) nno (Naxo^, âxofj.)] cf 2 Ch. 3113.—(7) nil
(Zape)] (cf V.33). Also a clan of Judah (383^) cf Nu. 26^3 (Simeonite), ;
I Ch. 6«- 26 (Levite).— (8) nDa'(2oAie)] cf i Sa. 16^ (David's brother), 2 Sa.
23^^ (one of his heroes) also '12V in Yerahmeel (1 Ch. 228-32) and Kaleb
;
(2**^-).
—(9) niD (Moê, 'Oyaofe, etc.)] only here. It is pointed out that the
four names form a doggerel sentence descent and rising, there and
:
'
here' (KS. An. 178); but three of them are sufficiently authenticated ;
and the fact does not prove them to be inventions of an idle fancy.
(10) E^'y ('Ie[o]i;s, 'leouX, etc.)] v.t. on v.^ As an Israelite name, 1 Ch.
71" 839 (Benjamite), 23'^°^' (Levite), 2 Ch. ii^^ (son of Rehoboam). The
—
name is thought by some to be identical with that of an Arabian lion-
god Yagui (though CBr must have pronounced £. not ji), meaning
* helper,' whose antiquity is vouched for by inscrs. of Thamud (Rob. Sm.
KM'', 254 We. Held? 19, 146 ; No. ZDMG, xl. 168 Fischer, ih. ; ;
Iviii. 869 Mey. INS, 351 f. on the other side, No. ZDMG, xlv. 595 Di.
; ; ;
—
384 Buhl, Edotn. 48 f.). (ii)D'?y''('Ie7Xo/A, etc.)] possibly an animal name
;
fr. =' ibex' but see Gray, HPN, 90^ cf. H';, Ju. 4^'^^- 5^^, and n^y!,
'73;;; ; ;
Ezr. 2^^. —
(12) mp (Kope)] a son of Hebron, and therefore a Kalebite clan
in I Ch. 2"'^ Meyer (352^) traces to this Edomite-Kalebite family the
origin of the ôrahite singers and subordinate officials of the second
Temple, who were afterwards admitted to the ranks of the Levites, and
received an artificial genealogy (Ex. 6^^- ^, Nu. 26^^, i Ch. (P- ^^ etc.).
15-19. The clan-chiefs of Edom. — 15. On the word

^^?i<, v.z. — Since the list is all but identical with vv.^~^*, we
have here a clear proof of the artificial character of the family
trees used in OT to set forth ethnological relations. It is
not improbable that this is the orig-inal census of Edomite

*thousands from which the genealogy of ^~^* was con-
'
structed. —
16. 'Amdlek is here placed on a level with the
other branches (ct. v.^^).
20-30. Horite genealogies. —20. the inhabitants of the
land] (Ex. 23^1, Nu. 3217, Ju. i^s) ; cf. 14^, Dt. 2^^, These
autochthones are described geographically and ethnologic-
ally as sons of Sezr the Horite, i.e., a section of the Horite
population settled in Mt. Se'ir, Se'ir being personified as
the fictitious ancestor of the natives of the country.
IS- T''''*] ffi ijyefniv, dux, whence EV *duke.' The word means U
properly chiliarch,' the chief of an f]h^ ( = thousand' or 'clan'): so
* *
Ex. 15^^, Zee. 12^-^ 9'. Elsewhere it signifies 'friend' and since the ;
sense clan would be suitable in all the passages cited, it has been
'
'
proposed to read in each case, as well as in this ch., ^px as the

original text (Rob. Sm. JPh. ix. 90 Mey. /NS, 330). Practically it ;
makes no difference for in any case the chiefs are but personifications * '
—
;
of their clans. —
16. mp Î'i'^n] juul om., probably a gloss from v.^^
18. itfy —na] (!Sc om. — 19. DHN nih] (& odroL ela-iv ol Tfyeixbves aurQv, vloi'Eddb/x.
—20. "^tff"] (S[ sing. 24b. DD.-n] The word is utterly obscure. ffi9. t6v
'lafjieiy ; Aq. Tot)s ijfxiv [Ifiei/j.] (see Field) ; mx D'O'nh (Dt. 2!" : so E^ xnaa) ;
W *
wild-asses '
and '
mules '
; & ] i V) 01-^ (oên ?) ; U aquce callidce.
If U be right (and
it is certainly the most plausible conjecture for sense),
24b
a fragment of an old well-legend, claiming the proprietorship of
is
these hot springs for the tribe of 'Anah (cf. Ju. i^'^^-). See, further,
Haupt, in Ball, SBOT, 118.—30b is in the style of P.— rye] I& 'E5u>/*.
XXXVI. 15-30 433
The name nh is now generally regarded as a geographical designa-
tion, identical with the {faru of the Eg. monuments (Miiller, AEy 137,
i49ff., 240; Jen. ZA^ x. 332 f., 346 f. Schw. ZATW, xviii. 126; Mey. ;
INSy 330 f.), The older theory that the name is derived from nin and
means 'cave-dwellers,' is not necessarily discredited by this identifica-
tion. Even if the Horites were a stratum of population that once
covered the region from the Egyptian frontier to the neighbourhood of
Damascus, there still seems no reason why they should not have been
largely an old troglodyte race, from whom the country derived its
name.
—
The Classification. According to ^°** ^'" there were seven main
branches of the Horites in Se'ir, represented by Lotan, §6bal, Zib'on,
'Anah, Di§6n, 'Ezer, and RiSan (see below). Of these, however, 'Anah
and DiSon reappear as subdivisions of Zib'on and 'Anah respectively.
The duplication has been explained by supposing that parts of these
tribes had amalgamated with kindred branches, and thus came to
figure both as sons and grandsons of the original ancestor (Di. Gu.
al.). It is more likely that 'Anah and Diôn were at first subordinate
septs of Zib'on (so Mey. 341) that they came into the list of 'allilphhn
;
p9f.^ as heads of clan groups and, finally, obtained a primary position

;
amongst the sons of Se'ir.

*
' The relationship as thus reconstructed
may be exhibited as follows :
(a) L6tan (Timna). (*) Sobal. (c) Zib'6n. (cO'Ezer. (^) Rlgan.
Hori,
'
Hemam.
'
'Alwan, 'Ayyah, 'Anah,

'. '
Bilhan,
i
'Uz,
Manahat, |
Za'Svan [ZQ'an], 'Aran.
'£bal, Di§6n [Ya]'akan.
Sgpho, (Ohdlibamah),
'Onam. |
Hemdan, 'ESban,
Yithran, KSran.
The Names. —{a) pi^ is plausibly connected with fi'if? (also a cave-
dweller, IQ^'*), who may have been originally an ancestral deity wor-
—
shipped in these regions. Philologically it is interesting to observe the
frequency of the endings -an, -on in this list, pointing to a primitive
nunatio7i, as constrasted with sporadic cases of mimation in the
—
Edomite names. nn (v.^^)] The occurrence of the national name (v. 2^) as
a subdivision of itself is surprising. Mey. (339) suspects confusion with
another genealogy in which Lotan figured as ancestor of the whole
—
Horite race. DD'n (i Ch. DDin, ©
kxy.6.v)\ cf. jo'rr, i Ki. 5", 1 Ch. 2^, Ps. 89^
— j;jDn, strangely introduced as the sister of Lotan, is the same as the

*
'
concubine of Eliphaz (v. ^2) probably interpolated in both places. (i)

:
^y\V3 (SwjSdX)] also a Kalebite tribe settled in Kiryath-Ye'arim, incorpor-

—
ated in Judah (1 Ch. t^- ^^ 4"). The name was connected by Rob. Sm.
with Ar. Uhl, 'young
objection
lion.' Ar.
perhaps not final in a borrowed name (but see No. ZDMGy
is
^ ought to be \ff in Heb. ; but the
xl. 168; Gray, liPNy 109).— p'?^ (i Ch. \-h)}, (& Vuik^v, Vu}\a.p., etc.)] cf.
niSy, v.^°; otherwise unknown. —
nnjD] It cannot be accidental that in
28
— — — —
434 EDOMITE GENEALOGIES
I Ch. the * half of Manahat is ag-ain represented as descended from

2"^ *
§6bal. These Manahathites are further connected with nj^-iy (v/''^*'), a

notice which We. (Bleek*, 197) has ing-eniously combined with Ju. 13^,
where nua, the father of Samson, is a native of Zor'ah. It seems to
follow, not only that mjD is originally the eponymus of nnjD, but that
this Horite clan lived in early times in Zor'ah and was included in the
mixed tribe of Dan (Mey. 340). h^'V (rat/37?\)] Mey. identifies with the
well-known mountain E of Shechem, originally a Horite settlement (?).
— ISC' (i Ch. 'Sd, aSc l^cjocpdp, 2w0di', Sw0, etc.)] unknown. D3ix {'Qfiav, 'Qvav)] —
A YerahmeeUte name, i Ch. 2^^- '^. The name of Judah's son pix (Gn.
38^-) may also be compared. —
(c) pj;33£ (Iêpeyibp)] Possibly a hyaena-
tribe {dabu, \^£i], NH, V)2^) (Smith, K'JIP, 254; Gray, 95).— 'Tn]
'falcon (Lv. '
11^*, Dt. 14^^, Jb. 28'^) ; cf. the personal name, 2 Sa. 3^ 21^^-.
— n^n] unknown. — [wn, jK'n (At^ctwj', Aai(rco;')]=* mountain-goat' (Dt. 14^).
— p?n) and ptyt< are not known. pn'] Derived from a widely
pj^n (Ch. —
diffused personal name (Heb. Bab. Sab. Nabat.), best known in OT
as that of Moses's father-in-law (Ex. 3^ etc.) also a son of Gideon ;
(Ju. 8-^), and the Ishmaelite father of Amasa (2 Sa. if^ etc.). —pa
(Xappdv)] only here. unknown. I'lVa] can scarcely be dissoci-
(d) i!ix] —
ated from Rachel's handmaid rinh2, whose Horite origin would be some-
what more intelligible if Horite clans were amalgamated in one of her
subdivisions (Dan see on Maiiahat above).
;
pyT (juu. |>it, Zou/cd/*,— ffir
Zavdj' = li;ii)] unknown. —

|py (better fpj-", as i Ch. i-^^)] The tribe is doubt-
less to be identified with the jijy;. 'i? mentioned in Xu. 33^^^-, Dt. 10^ as
the owners of some wells S of Kadesh. {e) pn ((G P[e]i(rwi')] Rd. jtyn
or I^'l, to avoid concurrence with the JE'î of v.^^-. py ("fis)] see on 10^ —
22^'. }"in] Perhaps connected with the YerahmeeUte px, i Ch. 2^. The
reading cnx (Heb. MSS, ffirUSTJ) is probably a mistake caused by the
proximity of \'\^.
31-39. The kings of Edom. —31. before there reigned

a king of the Israelites (z'./.)] This may mean either before
the institution of the monarchy in Israel, or before any
Israelitish sovereign ruled over Edom. The natural terminus
ad quern is, of course, the overthrow of Edomite independ-
ence by David (p. 437 below). —
The document bears every
mark of authenticity, and may be presumed to give a
complete list of Edomite kings. Unfortunately the chrono-
logy is wanting. An average reign of 20 years for the eight
kings (Meyer) is perhaps a reasonable allowance in early un-
31. S^'ys!^ '33*?] Expression of gen. by S to prevent determination of

the governing noun by the following determinate gen. (G-K. § 129 c),
*
a king belonging to the I.' The second interpretation given above is
the only natural one. ^^ kv 'lepovaaXrifx, ffi^^ iv 'laparjX, —the latter
too readily approved by Ball.
— — —
XXXVI. 31-36 435
settled times ; and the foundation of the Edomite monarchy
may be dated approximately from 150 to 200 years before
the time of David. —
The monarchy was obviously not
hereditary, none of the kings being the son of his pre-
decessor; that it was elective (Tu. Kn. Di. De. Dri. al.)
is more than we have a right to assume. Frazer {AAO, 11^)
finds here an illustration of his theory of female succession,
the crown passing to men of other families who married the
hereditary princesses ; but v.^^ is fatal to this view. The
fact that the kings reigned in different cities supports an
opinion (Winckler, GI, i. 192; Che. 429) that they were
analogous to the Hebrew Judges, i.e. local chiefs who held
supreme power during their life, but were unable to establish
a dynasty. A beginning of the recognition of the hereditary
principle may be traced in the story of Hadad of the seed
*
royal' (i Ki. ii^"^^-), who is regarded as heir-presumptive to

the throne (Meyer).
32. myn-p y'?3 ((& BdXaK vl tov Becip)] The name of the first king
bears a striking- resemblance to niy^-p unhi, the soothsayer whom the
king- of Moab hired to curse Israel (Nu. 22 ff.), and who afterwards died
fighting- for Midian (Nu, 31^ [P]). The identity of the two personages
is recognised by (amongst others) Kn-Di. No. {Unters. 87), Hommel
{AHT, 153, 222^), Sayce {EHH, 224, 229), Che. al., though the leg-end
which places his home at Pethor on the Euphrates (E) is hardly con-
sistent with this notice. —
nann (Aevvaâ), his city, is not known ace. ;
to Jerome, OS, p. 115,^ it is Dannata, between Ar Moab and the

Arnon, or Danfiaba near Heshbon (cf. Eus. OS, 114^^, [p. 249]) Hommel ;
and Sayce suggest Dunip, somewhere in N Syria. 33. 22V ('Iaj[a]j8d/3, —

'I(6j3, etc.)] identified by fflr (Jb. 42^^) with the patriarch Job. m^â] A —
chief city of Edom (Is. 34^ 63^, Jer. 48-^ 49^^* ^, Am. i^^), now el-Busatreh,
20 m. SE of the Dead Sea. —34. DE^n (Aa-6/j,, ^ Sn n ^ ^ = mwn)]
.
f/ig
—
land of the Tema7iite\ see on v.^^. 35. nnn bears the well-known name
of an Aramsean deity, whose worship must have prevailed widely in
Edom (see v.^^ i Ki. n^^^-)- "^ho smote Midian, etc.] The solitary
historical notice in the list. It is a tempting- sug-g-estion of Ewald
(HI, ii. 336), that the battle was an incident of the g-reat Midianite raid
under which Israel suffered so severely, so that this king was con-
—
temporary with Gideon (cf. Meyer, 381 f.). nîy] ®r T€6daifi = D:n]!, on
which reading Marquart {Fundamente, 11) bases an ing-enious explana-
tion of the mysterious name D'nyii'T jcj'O in Ju. 3^^- (o^ny b^nt D^m, a con- —
fusion of the third and fourth kings in our list). 36. n^Dty]— •idSb' ®
perhaps the same name as Solomon. r\^'\V!y:i\ A place of this name
(Maa-piKci) is mentioned in OS, 137^'' (p. 277), in Gebalene, the northern
—
436 EDOMITE GENEALOGIES
—
part of Mt. Seir. 37. h'âtc] The name of the first king- of Israel. ninm —
injn] so called to disting'uish it from other places of the same name
(cf 26^^), is probably the 'PowjSci^ of OS, 145^' (p. 286), a military post in
Gebalene. The river is, therefore, not the Euphrates (although a place
Rahaba has been discovered on its W
side), but some perennial stream
in the N of Edom, defined by the city on its banks (cf. 2 Ki. 5^^^ —
38. j3n ^ya] Baal is g-racious.' The name of the seventh king- is the
'
only existing trace of Baal-worship in Edom. iudj;] 'jerboa' (Ar.

âkhar) see Rob. Sm. KM'^, 235^.
: Here it is probably a clan-name,
but appears as personal in OT (2 Ki. 22^^, Jer. 26^2 36^^)- 39- i"''"'] To —
be read inn (Heb. MSS, M.Si<& partly, and i Ch. iô).— For lys (i Ch.
'ys), ffi: has ^6yo}py i.e. "iiy?, the mountain in Moab (Nu. 23^ etc.). Why —
the wife of Hadad ii. is named we cannot tell. SNnt:':^ (' God does
—
good ') is a man's name in Neh. 6^^ For nni "d na it would be better to
read 'd |3 (ffi^). But an? 'D (gold- water) is more likely to be the name
of a place than of a person hence Marquart's emendation 'd JD [I.e. 10)
;
is very plausible, as is his identification of 3nt 'D with the miswritten
Dm n of Dt. i^.
40-43. The chiefs of Esau. — This second list of

Âlluphim presents more features of P's style than any other
section of the chapter, but is of doubtful antiquarian value.
Of the eleven names, more than one half are found in the
preceding lists
(io-39)
; the new names, so far as they can be
explained, are geog-raphical. It is possible that the docu-
ment preserves a statistical survey of administrative districts
of Edomsubsequent to the overthrow of its independence
(Ew. Di. Dri. al.); but there is no evidence that this is
the case.
40. m'?j;=ji'?y, v."^. —
nn' {'leO^p, etc.)] probably nn; = pn', v.-". 41. n^K —
is supposed to be the seaport nh'n see on 14^. p'S (^t^/ej, 4>[e]ti'wf) =
;
Jiis, Nu. 33^^*", the âivujv (Fenon) of OS, 123^ (p. 299 cf. p. 123), a village
;
between Petra and Zoar, where were copper mmes worked by convicts.
The name (see Seetzen, iii. 17), and the ruins of the mines have been
discovered at Fenan, 6 or 7 m. NNW
of Sobek (Meyer, 353 f.). 42. n2i3D] —
Ace. to OS, 137^^ (p. 277), Maâapd was a very large village in Gebalene,
subject to Petra. —
43. hn'iiD and DTy are unknown. For the latter, Cr
has Za0a;et[j'] = "isî, v.^^. It is probable that in the original text both
names were contained, as in an anonymous chronicle edited by Lagarde
{Sept-St. ii. see Nestle, Marg. 12), making the number up to twelve.
;
remains to state briefly the more important historical results

It
yielded by study of these Edomite lists, (i) At the earliest period of
which we have any knowledge, the country of Se'ir was peopled by a
40. nnpo'?] ^ Dni-iVn'?. —onDcn] ffir Dn"ii3i onsnxa (10^- ^^).

—43. cnnK'D'?]
ux DmnarDS (v. •*''). —wy Nin] see on v.^

—
XXXVI. 37-43 437
supposed aborig-inal race called Horites. Thoug-h remnants of this
population survived only in Se'ir, there are a few traces of its former
existence in Palestine and it is possible that it had once been co-
;
extensive with the wide region known to the Egyptians as Haru (p. 433).
— (2)Within historic times the country was occupied by a body of
nomads closely akin to the southern tribes of Judah, who amalgamated
with the Horites and formed the nation of Edom. (3) The date of this —
invasion cannot be determined. Se'irites and Edomites appear almost
contemporaneously in Egyptian documents, the former under Ramses
III. as a nomadic people whom the king attacked and plundered and ;
the latter about 50 years earlier under Merneptah, as a band of Bedouin

who were granted admission to the pastures of WadI Tumilat within the
Egyptian frontier {Pap. Harris and Anasiasi see Miiller, AE, 135 f.
:
;
cf. Mey. IN^S, 337 f.). Since both are described as Bedouin, it would
seem that the Edomites were still an unsettled people at the beginning
of the 12th cent. The land of Seriy however, is mentioned in the TA
Tablets {KAT^, 201) more than two centuries earlier. (4) The list of —
kings shows that Edom attained a political organisation much sooner
than Israel hence in the legends Esau is the elder brother of Jacob. The
:
interval between Ramses III. and David is sufficient for a line of eight
kings but the institution of the monarchy must have followed within
;
a few decades the expedition of Ramses referred to above. It is

probable (though not certain) that the last king Hadad II. was the one
subdued by David, and that the Hadad who fled to Egypt and after-
wards returned to trouble Solomon (i Ki. ii^'*^')was of his family.
(5) The genealogies and
furnish evidence of the consanguinity of Edomite
Judaean tribes. In several instances we have found
same name the
amongst the descendants of Esau or Se'ir and amongst those of Judah
(see the notes pass.). This might be explained by assuming that a clan
had been split up, one part adhering to Edom, and another attaching
itself to Judah but a consideration of the actual circumstances suggests
;
a more comprehensive theory. The consolidation of the tribe of Judah

was a process of political segregation the desert tribes that had pushed
:
their way northwards towards the Judaean highlands, were welded

together by the strong hand of the Davidic monarchy, and were
reckoned as constituents of the dominant southern tribe. Thus it would
happen that a Horite or Edomite clan which had belonged to the empire
of Edom was drawn into Judah, and had to find a place in the artificial
genealogies which expressed the political unity resulting from the
incorporation of diverse ethnological groups in the tribal system. If
Meyer be right in holding that the genealogies of the Chronicler reflect
the conditions of the late post-Exilic age, when a wholesale conversion
of Kalebite and Yerahmeelite families to Judaism had taken place {INS,
300 f. Entst. d. Jud. ii4ff., 130 ff".), a comparison with Gn. 36 yields
;
a striking testimony to the persistency of the minor clan-groups of the

early Horites through all vicissitudes of political and religious condition.
JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN.
Chs. XXXVII-L.
The last division of the Book of Genesis is occupied almost entirely
with the history of Joseph, —at once the most artistic and the most
fascinating of OT
biog-raphies. Its connexion is twice interrupted (a) :
by the story of Judah and Tamar (ch. 38) and (b) by the so-called
;
Blessing- of Jacob (49^'^^) see the introductory notes on these chapters.

:
Everywhere else the narrative follows the thread of Joseph's fortunes ;

the plan and contents being- as follows :
Chs. 37. 39-41. Joseph's solitary career in Eg-ypt

I. i. Joseph : —
betrayed by his brethren and carried down to Egypt (37), 2. How
he maintained his virtue against the solicitation of his master's wife,
and was thrown into prison (39). 3. His skill in interpreting dreams
discovered (40). 4. His interpretation of Pharaoh's dreams, and his
consequent elevation to the highest dignity in Egypt (41).
n. Chs. 42-45. The reunion of Joseph and his brethren 5. The first :
—
meeting of the brethren with Joseph in Egypt (42). 6. The second
meeting (43. 44). 7. Joseph reveals himself to his brethren (45),
HI. Chs. 46-50. The settlement of the united family in Egypt :
— 8.
Jacob's journey to Egypt and settlement in Goshen (46. 47^"'^), 9.
Joseph's agrarian policy (4'j'^^-^^). Joseph at his father's death-bed
10.
(4729-31 48). 1 1. Death and burial of Jacob, and death of Joseph (4929-33
50).
The composition of documents is of the same general character as in
the previous section of Genesis, though some peculiar features present
themselves. The Priestly epitome (37^ 41"^'^ 42^- 46^- ^^"27] 475*- 6a. 7-11. 27b. 28
*''*
483-6 49i'*- 28b-33aab 2q12. 13) jg hardly less broken and fragmentary than in the
history of Jacob, and produces at first sight the same impression as there,
of being merely supplementary to the older narratives, an impression, —
however, which a closer inspection easily dispels. Certain late words
and constructions have led some critics to the conclusion that the JE
passages have been worked over by an editor of the school of P
(Giesebrecht, ZATW, i. 237, 266^; Ho. 234). The cases in point have
been examined by Kue. {Ond. i. p. 317 f.), who rightly concludes that
they are too few in number to bear out the theory of systematic
Priestly redaction. — With regard to the composition of J and E, the
most important fact is that the clue to authorship supplied by the
divine names almost entirely fails us, and is replaced by the distinction
between Israel and Jacob which as names of the patriarch are character-
438
xxxvii.-L 439
istic of J and E respectively (exceptions are 46^ 48^- "•
m.T ^^ [50^''']; 46^'').
occurs only in ch. 39 (7 times) elsewhere D'n'^N is invariably used, some-

;
times in contexts which would otherwise be naturally assigned to J,

though no reason appears why J should depart from his ordinary
usage {e.g. 42^8), It may not always be safe to rely on this character-
istic when it is not supported by other indications. Eerdmans, who
rejects in principle the theory of a Yahwistic and an Elohistic document,
is obliged to admit the existence of an /sra^/-recension and a Jacob-
recension, and makes this distinction the basis of an independent

analysis. A comparison of his results with those commonly accepted by
recent critics is instructive in more ways than one. * On the whole, it
increases one's confidence in the ordinary critical method.
* The Israel-recension (I-R) consists, according to Eerdmans, of

2«a
(J + E), (E), 29 (E), 30-33 (£ + J), 36 (E) 43 (J) 44 45^8 (J), ^gl. 2a
373-2^ ; ; (J) ;
2«-3^ 13-^^- ^^^ (P), 29-31 48I (E), ^b 8-22

(JE), (J) ; 47'-° (J [v.^ P*]), (J), (J) ; (j),
(J +E) ; 501-^1 (J), 14-26 (E*). To

the Jacob-recension (J-R) he assigns 372
(P), 2^-2' (J), '''' (J), '' (JE), 35 (J) ; 40 ; 41 ; 42 (all E) ; 45I-27 (E*), 46^^-5 (£-),
6- 7
(P) ; 476-11 (p*)^ 12 (E), 28 (?) ; 49!^ (p)^ 29-33 (p) . ^^12. 13 ^p) (^Jfômp. d.
Gen. 65-71) the usual analysis is roughly indicated by the symbols
:
within brackets. How does this compare with the generally accepted
critical results? (i) No distinction is recognised between P and the
other sources ; the fragments are mostly assigned to the J-R, but 483-'
isrejected as an interpolation (p. 27). (2) Eerdmans regards ch. 39 (the
incident of Potiphar's wife) as the addition of an unintelligent redactor ;
mainly on the ground that it contains the name m.T (the use of the divine
names is thus after all a reliable criterion of authorship when it suits
Eerdmans' purpose !). A more arbitrary piece of criticism could hardly
be found. (3) Apart from these two eccentt-icities, and the finer shades
of analysis which Eerdmans refuses to acknowledge, it will be seen that
except in ch. 37 his division agrees a potiori with that of the majority of
critics i.e., the I-R corresponds in the main with J and the J-R with
;
E. (4) In ch. 37, on the contrary, the relation is reversed I-R = E, and :
J-R = J. But this divergence turns on a wholly arbitrary and indefens-

ible selection of data. Since the J-R in 45^ speaks of a sale of Joseph
28b
(to the Ishmaelites), it is inferred that 3725-27. belonged to it. It is
conveniently overlooked that 40^^ (also J-R) refers back to 37^^*- ^^- (the
stealifig of Joseph), that 42^ (J-R) presupposes 37^2 (I-R) to say ;
nothing of the broad distinction that Judah's leadership is as character-

istic of one source as Reuben's is of the other. If Eerdmans had duly
considered the whole of the evidence, he would have seen first that it is
absolutely necessary to carry the analysis further than he chooses to do,
and next that the two recensions in ch. 37 must exchange places in order
to find their proper connexions in the following chapters. With that
readjustment, not unfair to claim him as an unwilling witness to the
it is
essential soundness of the prevalent theory. With the best will in the
world, he has not been able to deviate very far from the beaten track ;
and where he does strike out a path of his own, he becomes entangled
in difficulties which may yet cause him to retrace his steps.
440 THE STORY OF JOSEPH
The story of Joseph is the finest example in Genesis, or even in the
OT, of what is sometimes called * From the
novelistic
narrative. '
other patriarchal biographies it is distinguished first of all by the

dramatic unity of a clearly conceived * plot,' the unfolding- of which
exhibits the conflict between character and circumstances, and the
triumph of moral and personal forces amidst the chances and vicissitudes
of human affairs. The ruling- idea is expressed in the words of E, ** Ye
intended evil ag-ainst me, but God intended it for good " (50^° ; cf. 45''- '') :
it is the sense of an overruling-, yet immanent, divine Providence,
realising- its purpose through the complex interaction of human motives,
working out a result which no single actor contemplated. To this higher
unity everything is subordinated the separate scenes and incidents
;
merge naturally into the main stream of the narrative, each representing
a step in the development of the theme. The style is ample and diffuse,
but never tedious the vivid human interest of the story, enhanced by a
;
vein of pathos and sentiment rarely found in the patriarchal narratives,

secures the attention and sympathy of the reader from the beginning to
the close. We note, further, a certain freedom in the handling of tradi-
tional material, and subordination of the legendary to the ideal element in
the composition. The comparatively faint traces of local colour, the
absence of theophanies and cult-legends generally, the almost complete
elimination of tribal relations, are to be explained in this way and also ;
perhaps some minute deviations from the dominant tradition, such as the
conception of Jacob's character, the disparity of age between Joseph and
his older brothers, the extreme youth of Benjamin (suggesting that he
had been born since Joseph left home), the allusions to the mother as if
still alive, etc. Lastly, the hero himself is idealised as no othei patri-
archal personality is. Joseph is not (like Jacob) the embodiment of one
particular virtue, but is conceived as an ideal character in all the relations
in which he is placed he is the ideal son, the ideal brother, the ideal
:
servant, the ideal administrator.

The close parallelism of J and E, together with the fact that the literary
features enumerated above are shared by both, show that it had taken
shape before it came into the hands of these writers, and strongly
suggest that it must have existed in written form. The hypothesis of B.
Luther {INS, 141 fi^.), that the original author was J, and that he composed
it as a connecting link between the patriarchal legends and those of the
Exodus, is destitute of probability. The motive suggested is inadequate

to account for the conception of a narrative so rich in concrete detail as
that before us. Moreover, there is no reason to think that E is depend-
ent on J and it is certain that in some points (the leadership of Reuben,
;
e.g-.) E follows the older tradition. Nor is there much foundation for
Luther's general impression that such a narrative must be the creation
of a single mind. In any case the mastery of technique which is here
displayed implies a long cultivation of this type of literature (ib. 143) ;
and the matter of the Joseph-narratives must have passed through many
successive hands before it reached its present perfection of form.
It is impossible to resolve such a composition completely into its
traditional or legendary elements but we may perhaps distinguish
;
XXXVII.-L 441
broadly the three kinds of material which have been laid under contribu-
tion, (i) The element of tribal history or relationships, thoug-h slight
and secondary, is clearly recognisable, and supplies a key which may
be used with caution to explain some outstanding features of the narrative.
That there was an ancient tribe named Joseph, afterwards subdivided
into Ephraim and Manasseh, is an item of Hebrew tradition whose
authenticity there seems no good reason to question (see p. 533) and ;
the prestige and prowess of this tribe are doubtless reflected in the
distinguished position held by Joseph as the hero of the story. Again,
actual tribal relations are represented by the close kinship and strong-
affection between Joseph and Benjamin ; and by the preference of
Ephraim before Manasseh, and the elevation of both to the status of
adopted sons of Jacob. The birthright and leadership of Reuben in E
implies a hegemony of that tribe in very early times, just as the similar
position accorded to Judah in J reflects the circumstances of a later age.
These are perhaps all the features that can safely be interpreted of real
tribal relations. Whether there was a migration of the tribe of Joseph
to Egypt, whether this was followed by a temporary settlement of all
the other tribes on the border of the Delta, etc., are questions which
this history does not enable us to answer ; and attempts to find a
historical significance in the details of the narrative (such as the sleeved
tunic of Joseph, the enmity of his brethren, his wandering from Hebron
to Shechem and thence to Dothan, the deliverance of Joseph by Reuben
or Judah, and so on) are an abuse of the ethnographic principle of inter-
pretation. — For (2) alongside of this there is an element of individual
biography, which may very well preserve a reminiscence of actual
events. There must have been current in ancient Israel a tradition of
some powerful Hebrew minister in Egypt, who was the means of saving
the country from the horrors of famine, and who used his power to re-
model the land-system of Egypt to the advantage of the crown. That
such a tradition should be true in essentials is by no means improbable.
There were * Hebrews in Palestine as early as the 14th cent. B.C.
'
(p. 218), and that one of these should have been kidnapped and sold as a
boy into slavery in Egypt, and afterwards have risen to the office of
viceroy, is in accordance with many parallels referred to in the monuments
(p. 469); while his promoting the immig-ration of his kinsfolk under stress
of famine is an incident as likely to be real as invented. The figure of
Yanhamu, the Semitic minister of Amenhotep IV. (pp. 501 f.), presents a
partial counterpart to that of Joseph, though the identification of the two
personages rests on too slender data to be plausible. The insoluble
difficulty is to discover the point where this personal history passes into
—
the stream of Israelite national tradition, or where Joseph ceases to be
an individual and becomes a tribe. The common view that he was the
actual progenitor of the tribe afterwards known by his name is on many
grounds incredible and the theory that he was the leader of a body of
;
Hebrew immigrants into Egypt does violence to the most distinctive fea-
tures of the representation. Steuernagel's suggestion {Einw. 67), that the
story is based on feuds between the tribe Joseph and the other tribes, in
the course of which individual Josephides were sold as slaves to Egypt,
— —
442 JOSEPH BROUGHT TO EGYPT (p, Je)
illustrates the futility of trying to explain the narrative from two points
of view at once. The tribal and the personal conceptions must be kept
distinct, each may contain a kernel of history of its own kind but the ;
union of the two was effected not on the plane of history in either sense,
but during- the process of artistic elaboration of the theme. (3) There
is, lastly, an element of Eg-yptian folklore, which has been drawn on to
some extent for the literary embellishment of the story. The incident of
Joseph's temptation (ch. 39) appears to be founded on an Egyptian
popular tale (p. 459). The obscure allusions to Joseph as a potent
mag-ician are very probably surviving traces of a motive which was more
boldly developed in an Egyptian source. The prominence of dreams and
their interpretation perhaps hardly falls under this head ; it may rather
be part of that accurate acquaintance with Egyptian life which is one of
the most striking features of the narrative. That in this legendary
element there is an admixture of mythical material is very possible but ;
a direct influence of mythology on the story of Joseph is extremely

speculative. —It has been argued with some force that the presence of
this Egyptian colouring itself goes far to show that we have to do with
genuine history, not with a legend woven by popular fancy upon the
'
hills of Ephraim (Dri. DB, ii. TJib).

'
At the same time it has to be
considered that the material may have been largely woven in Egypt
itself, and afterwards borrowed as drapery for the Israelite hero Joseph.
Egyptian folklore might easily have been naturalised in Canaan during

the long Egyptian domination, or have been imported later as a result
of Egyptian influence at the court of Jeroboam i. It is not difficult to
suppose that it was appropriated by the Hebrew rhapsodists, and

incorporated in the native Joseph-legend, and gradually moulded into
the exquisite story which we now proceed to examine.
Ch. XXXVII. How Joseph was lost to his Father through

his Brethren's Hatred and Treachery (P, JE).
As the favoured child of the family, and because of dreams

portending a brilliant future, Joseph becomes an object of
hatred and envy to his brothers (^~^^). A favourable oppor-
tunity presenting itself, they are scarcely restrained from
murdering him by prudential and sentimental considerations
urged by one or other of their number (Judah, Reuben) but ;
eventually consent to dispose of him without actual bloodshed

î2-30j^ With heartless cruelty they pretend that Joseph
must have been devoured by a wild beast, and witness their
father's distress without being moved to confession (3^"^).
The chapter is not only full of thrilling human interest, but
lays the 'plot' for the highly dramatic story which is to
follow. The sudden dis.ippearance of the most interesting
— — :
XXXVII. I, 2 443
member of the family, the inconsolable grief of the father,

the guilty secret shared by the brothers, and, above all, the
uncertainty which hangs over the fate of Joseph, appeal
irresistibly to the romantic instinct of the reader, who feels
that all this is the prelude to some signal manifestation of

divine providence in the working out of Joseph's destiny.
Sources. —Vv.^- —
belong to P {v.L). The analysis of the rest of the
^
chapter may from ^^"^°, where evidences of a double recension are

start
clearest. In one account, Joseph is sold to Ishmaelites on the advice of
Judah in the other, he is kidnapped by passing- Midianites, unknown
;
to the brethren, and to the dismay of Reuben, who had hoped to save
him (see the notes). The former is J (cf. 45^^), the latter E (40^^).
Another safe clue is found in the double motive assigned for the envy
of the brethren ^' * (the sleeved tunic) ^"^^ (the dreams) the dream-
: || :
motive is characteristic of E throughout the narrative, and ^*- are from

J because of hir\V (cf. ^^ and ct. npr in ^). Smaller doublets can be
detected in ^^-i^ i^ 18-20^ j^ 2if.^ a.nd in ^**-. The analysis has been worked
.
out with substantial agreement amongst critics and, with some finishing ;
touches from the hand of Gu. (353 ff.), the result is as follows J = 3- 4. i3a. :
14b. 18b. 21. 23. 26-27. 28jUy Ai^Qî tO flDD) ^^' Sâayb. 33aab. 34b. 35a .
£ _ 5-11. 13b. 14a. 15-17.
18a. 19. 20. 22. 24. 28aa)3
(to nUn) "• 29. 30. 32a;3- SSa^g. 34a.
35b. 36.
This may be aCCCptcd
as the basis of the exposition, though some points are open to question,
particularly the assumption that all references to a tunic of any kind are
to be ascribed to J.
i-ii. The alienation between Joseph and his

brethren. —Three disjointed fragments of P, of which
I, 2.
v.^ is the original continuation of 36^"^ (see p. 429) and is ;

'^^'^
a heading from the Book of Tdledoth (see p. 40 f.), which ought

to be followed by a genealogy, —
perhaps 35^^^"^^, "^ which we
have seen to stand out of proper connexion (p. 423)
its
2a^7b
tj^gn introduces P's history of Joseph, which has been
mostly suppressed by the redactor. —The clause yii\ t^'ini is
difficult. As a parenthesis (Dri.) it is superfluous after the
onuD (17^) and jyaa px (but see p. 474) are characteristic of P.

I.
Mike verbs of governing' (Str.); so i Sa. 16^^ 17H nyj Nim]
2. '3 nyn] —
Gu. suggests ^V iy.4 'm (Niph. s} i^V cf. Jer. 6^2 etc., and the Hithpal.
:
in Jb. 17^), or nj;T 'ni (= *kept company with'), — neither proposal just
convincing. r\v\ onm (so Nu. 14'^'^)] lit. ' brought the report of them evil,'
'nbeing second ace, or tertiary pred. (Da. § 76). A bad sense is in-
herent in n3"n, which is a late word, in Hex. confined to P (Nu. 13^2 i^ssf.^^
* Rather than 46^*^-, as suggested by Kurtz (quoted by Hupf. Qu.

216).
—
444 JOSEPH BROUGHT TO EGYPT (je)
definitestatement of Joseph's age In â^, and leaves us with

a wrong identification of the sons of the concubines with the
previous "ITIK. If it be joined to what follows, Gu. has rightly
seen that we want a word expressing something that Joseph

was or did in relation to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. The
meaning probably is that Joseph, while shepherding with
(all) his brethren, fell out with the four sons of the con-
cubines.
With this change, Di.'s objections to the unity of v.^ fall to the ground,
and the whole may be safely ascribed to P (note the chronology, the
supplementary V3N 'Sf:, and the phrase nyi nai). Short as the fragment —
is, it shows that P's account was peculiar in two respects (i) He :
restricts the hostility to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, and (2) he traces
itto Joseph's reporting their misdeeds to Jacob. It is plain that P is
no mere supplementer of the older history, but an independent author,
though his account has been sacrificed to the more graphic narratives
of J and E.
3, 4 (J). Now Israel lovedJoseph . . .] These are evidently

the opening words of J's Joseph-story, in which the sole
motive of the brothers' hatred is the father's favouritism
towards the son of his old age (16^ 44^^ J)- — ^"^^ ^r?^?] a
shirt or tunic reaching to the extremities (D^SS), i,e. the wrists
and ankles, whereas the ordinary under-garment was sleeve-
less, and reached only to the knees. That it was an unusual
habiliment appears also from 2 Sa. 13^8!. . 13^^ speculations
as to mythological significance [ATLO^, 384) have no
its
—
support in either passage. 4. could not address him peace-
3. r\v^'\\ txx. B'yn. As the tense can hardly be freq., it is best to restore
nbyn (Ba. Kit). D'ds njn^] Cf. Jos. Ant. vii. 171 : e<p6povv yap ai Ti3v
apxo-'t-wv Trap64voi %ei/3t5wroi)s cixP'- '''^'^ (r(f>vp(3u Trpbs to fir] ^Xîrecrdai xtraJi'as.
Except (& {xLTioua iroiKiXov) and U {iunicam polymitam [but cf. v.^^]),
all Vns. here support this sense : Aq. x- aaTpaydXojv, S. x- X'^'-P'-^^T^^t
S> (A-**;Z5 |±_iZaD (* with sleeves'), ^T^ 'can N:in'3, etc. In 2 Sa. 13,
ffiU and S curiously change sides {x- Kapwutrds, fa/arts tunicay
"j
A*^ [\
».wVr) p ./pn [= tunica striata]). The real meaning is deter-
mined by NH and Aram. DS (Dn. s''- 24) =a;p?K, Ezk. 47^; see Bevan,
Da7i. 100.—4. vnN2] Heb. MSS xxx(& vn S ÔCTlXd ^_SD-— diWS n?!!] ;
On the suff., see G-K. § 115 c. But no other case occurring of 13^ with
ace. of pers. addressed (Nu. 26' is corrupt), Gu. points n^n (' could not
take his matter peaceably'). Kit. em. '"? iS 121^ (the might be omitted: *?
—— — ;;'
XXXVII. 3-13 445
ably] or, * salute him.' The text is doubtful (v.i.). 5-II. —

Joseph's dreams (E). — 6, 7* The first dream a harvest scene —
— represents Jacob's family as agriculturists (see on 26^^)
in VV.2- i3ff. ^^53iff.
|-j^gy are shepherds. There may be some
hint of the immediate cause of its fulfilment, a failure of the
harvest (Gu.), though this is questionable. —8a. Will l/iou,
/orsoolh, be king over us?\The language points beyond the

personal history of Joseph to the hegemony of the 'house of
Joseph' in N Israel (Ju. i^^^-). 9. The second dream pre- —
sages Joseph's elevation not only over his brothers, but over
his father (Ho.), i.e, Israel collectively. eleven slars] Sup-
posed by some to be an allusion to the signs of the Zodiac
(De. Gu. al., cf. Je. ATLO^, 383), the twelfth being either
Joseph himself, or the constellation obscured by Joseph as the
sun-god. The theory will stand or fall with the identification
of Jacob's twelve sons with the Zodiacal signs (see pp. 534 f.)
the absence of the art. here makes it, however, at least im-
probable that the theory was in the mind of the writer.
II. envied IS the appropriate word for E's account, as '
hated
(v.*) is for J's (^^ and ^^ are redactional). his father kepi Ihe
mailer (in mind)] ^ Surriprja-cv. Cf. Lk. 2^^- ^^.
While significant dreams bulk largely in E's Joseph - narrative

(ch. 40 f.), it is characteristic of this section of the work that the dreams
contain no oracular revelations (like 20^^* 31^^'^^), but have a meaning-
in themselves which is open to human interpretation. The religious
spirit of these chapters (as also of ch. 24), both in J and E, is a mature
faith in God's providential ruling of human affairs, which is independent
of theophanies, or visible interpositions of any kind. It can scarcely be
doubted that such narratives took shape at a later period of OT religion
than the bulk of the patriarchal legends.
12-17. Jacob' sends Joseph to inquire after his

brethren. — 12, 13a, 14b J ||
13b, 14a E (see the analysis
see Ex. —5b out of place before the telling of the dream, and
2^ etc.). is is
cm. by — Ins.
ffi. 7. at the beginning, with
^r\y^n Xe7. na^K, fflr. d'?x] ^tt. ;
Ps. 126^1. —8b. Another redactional addition, though found in ®r note ;
the pi. 'dreams' when only one has been — loa. vnx — an
told. nsD'i is in-
terpolation intended to explain what immediately follows, ffi omits, and
seeks to gain the same end by inserting vdn"? before vnvh in ^ 1
12-14 is composite, ^^-w shows that ^2- ^^* belong to J and 'Jjrr ;
shows that ^'^^ is from E (cf. 22^- 7- " zf- 31"). Hence ^^* is not a specifi-
— —
below). In J, Jacob is dwelling in the vale of Hebron) the

sons have gone to Shechem. If the incident of ch. 34 belonged
to the same cycle of tradition, the brethren would perhaps

hardly have ventured into the neighbourhood of Shechem so
soon (see p. 418) though it has been argued that this very
;
circumstance accounts for Jacob's solicitude. In E we find

no indication of either the starting-point or the goal of the
journey. 14a suggests that the flocks were at some distance
from Jacob's home possibly the narrative is based on a
:
stratum of E in which Jacob's permanent residence was at

Bethel (see on 35^). 15~^7* The man who directs Joseph to
Dothan is not necessarily a neighbour of the family who knew
Joseph by sight (Gu.) nor is the incident a faded version of
;
a theophany (Ho. Ben.): it is simply a vivid description of

the uncertainty of Joseph's persistent search for his brethren.
7I8)
—Ddthan (2 Ki. e^^ff-,
Jth. 3^ 46 is the modern Tell
Dothan^ near Genin, about 15 miles N of Shechem. Some
local legend may have connected it with the history of Joseph.
15-17
would be a sufficiently natural continuation of ^^'^
(J), and Gu.'s
conjecture (above) establishes no presumption to the contrary. They
may, however, be from E in this case it is probable that E did not
:
mention Shechem at all, nor J Dothan.
18-30. The plot to murder Joseph frustrated by

Reuben or Judah (J).— i8a, 19, 20 E
(E), iSb J. ||
Common to both sources is the proposal to kill Joseph E ;
develops it most fully, revealing the motive of the crime and
cation, but a variant, of ^^*, continuing ^^^. ^-^^ obviously follows ^^. 12. —
ht<]with puncta extraordinaria, because for some reason the text was
suspected. —
14. pt^n îr^];o (23-- ^^)] The words might be a gloss based on
P (35-" 49-^* 50^^) but Steuernagel's proposal to remove them {Einw. 36)
;
takes too little account of the fragmentariness of J's narrative in ch. 35 ;
and Gu.'s argument that the journey was too long for a young lad is
— —
weak. 17. 'nyc:i'] xxi.(& D^nyots'. nrm, |m] The form with is the older '
(cf. Eg. Tu-ti-y-7ia^ Miiller, AE, 88), the other an accommodation to a
common nominal The ending \\~ is not dual, but an old

termination.
(Aram. corresponding to Heb. 3^— (see pp. 342 f.
?) locative Barth, ;
NB,z\i", G-K. §88c).

l8a and i8ba are obviously doublets the analysis adopted above
;
gives the simplest arrangement. iVdjd'i] 'acted craftily,' only found in

late writings (Nu. 25^^ Mai. i^'*, Ps. i05-'t)> but the sj occurs in Aram.
— — —
XXXVII. 14-25 447
the device by which it was to be concealed. — ip. yon master"
dreamer\ a mocking- epithet ; cf. ^^^. —20. and throw him (his
dead body) into one of the pits] The idea would suit either
narrative and we cannot be sure that the indefinite one
;
'
of the pits' does not come from J (see 2^). 21 J ||22 E. In —

21 we must Y&2idjudah for Reuhen. and delivered him out o/ —
their hand] is premature (y.^^) the clause might stand :
more naturally in J between ^^ and 2^, though the rest of the

V. must be left where it is (so Gu.). we will not kill
him outright] Judah has as yet no counter-proposal. 22. —
Reuben, on the other hand, has his scheme ready: he
appeals to the antique horror of shed blood, which cries for
veng*eance on the murderer (4^^). this pit] a particular cistern
which Reuben knew to be empty of water (2^^), It is prob-
able that one of the numerous pits round Dothan was tradi-
tionally associated with the fate of Joseph (Gu.) cf. the :
Khan Gtcbb Yusuf nediV Safed, incorrectly identified with the

Dothan cistern (BR, ii. 418 f.).— 24 (E).—25-27, 28ayS (J).
The fate of Joseph is apparently still undecided, when Judah
makes an appeal to the cupidity of his brothers (what profit^
etc. ?), by proposing" to sell him to some passing Ishmaelites.
— 25. « caravan from Gilead] The plain of Dothan is

. . .
traversed by a regular trade route from Gilead through Belsan

to Ramleh, and thence (by the coast) to Egypt (Buhl, <?P,
127). Shechem also lies on several routes from the E of the
—
Jordan to the coast. The natural products mentioned (v.i.)
were much in request in Egypt for embalming, as well as
and Ass. — On the accus., see G-K. 117 w. — niD^nn The render-
§ 19. "^yn]
ing- above a
is too strong- for the use of ^V^ as
little ; of relation,' see *
n.
BDB, 127 — csj
b. 21. Second ace. of respect, G-K.
1J33] 117//. — § 22.
nin nun-'?x]<& eua twv XdKKOJu, a false assimilation to
els —23. v.^^.
insnsTiN] (& om. It is impossible to say whether this and the following
appositional phrase are variants from E and J respectively, or whether
the second is a (correct) gloss on J. U combines both in the rendering-
tunica talari et polyviita. —
25. Dn7"'?3N7 oii"')] Assig-ned by many critics
(Di. al.) to E, and certainly not necessary in J. But we still miss a
statement in E that the brothers had moved away from the pit. dndj
(43^^ t)] supposed to be gum-tragacanth * Ar. nakdat. 'IfM^^'i)^] the
'
;
—
resinous g'um for which Gilead was famous (43^S Jer. 8^^ 46^^ 51^,
Ezk. 27^'^ t) possibly that exuded by the mastic-tree but see EB, 465 f.
; ;
for medicinal and other purposes. —26. cover his blood] Ezk.
24^, Is. 26^1, Jb. 16^^. —28.
twenty (shekels) of silver] cf. Lv.
with Ex. 21^2 (see Dri.).— 28aab, 29, 30 (E). Joseph is
2.f
kidnapped by trading Midianites, who pass unobserved after
the brothers have left the spot. —30. Only now does Reuben
reveal his secret design of delivering Joseph. It is interest-
ing to note his own later confusion of the intention with the
act, in 42^2.
That the from another source than 25-27 appears from

last section is
designation of the merchants, (6) the absence of the art.
(a) the different
showing- that they have not been mentioned before, (c) Reuben's surprise
at finding- the pit empty. The composite narrative requires us to
assume that the brethren are the subj. of i'?y'i iDtyDn, against the natural
construction of the sentence.
31-36. The deceiving of Jacob. —31, 32. Gu. remarks

that the sending of a bloody token is a favourite motive in
popular tales. Whether the incident is peculiar to J, or
common to J and E, can hardly be determined {y.i.) — 33. an
evil beast has devoured him] Exactly as v.^^ (E). A slight
change of text in ^^ [^.i.) would enable us to take the words
as spoken by the sons to Jacob (so Gu.). 34, 35. The grief
of Jacob is depicted in both sources, but with a difference.
E (^^^- ^^^) hardly goes beyond the conventional signs of
mourning — ' the trappings and the suits of woe '
; but J
(34b. 35aj dwells ou the inconsolable and life-long sorrow of
— tsS (43^^ t)] Gk. \rj8avov, Lat. ladanuni, the gum of a species of cistus-
rose {EB, 2692 f.). Mentioned amongst objects of Syrian tribute {ladunu)
by Tiglath-pileser IV. {KAT\ 151). —27. D'SNyDr'S] ffi + n^xn. The word
is apparently used in the general sense of Bedouin,' as Ju. S'^"* (cf. '
6^ etc.): see on 16^-. inB'aJ jumCErÛ prefix ?. —

28b is assigned to E —
because of in'3'1, J using nmn in this connexion {^ 39^ 43^^ etc.). 29. pj<] —
(& ovx opq..
3K. The reason for assigning the v. to J (Gu.) is the precarious as-
sumption that Joseph's coat plays no part at all in E. There is a good
deal to be said for the view that it belongs to E (Di, Ho. al.). 32. inu'i] —
Gu. iNi3;i, and they came (see on ^^ above), which would be an excellent
' '
continuation of ^^ in E they dip the coat in blood, come to their father,

:
and say an evil beast,' etc. in J they send the coat unstained, and let
'
;
—
Jacob form his own conclusion. In any case '1JI in'3'i is E's parallel to J's
'ui inSc'i. — NnDH and the disjunctive question (cf. iS^^ 24^^) point
(cf. 38''^^),
distinctly to J (Di.).— nonsn] G-K. § 100 /.—33. After 'J3, mx(&& ins. N'n.—
— — —
XXXVII. 26-36 449
the bereaved father. This strain of pathos and subjectivity

is very marked in J in the Joseph narratives. rent his
clothes put on sackclotK\ On these customs, the origin
. . .
of which is still obscure, see Schw. Lehen n. d. Tode^ 1 1 ff. ;
Griineisen, Ahncncultus, 6 1 ff. ; Engert, Ehe- u. Fatnilienrecht^

96 ff. —34b. ''?^P'7, chiefly used in reference to the dead, in-
cludes the outward tokens of mourning : Ex. 33*, 2 Sa. 14^;
cf. Is. 61^, Ps. 35I*. — 35. all his daughters\ There was really
only one daughter in the family. A similar indifference to
the prevalent tradition in details is seen in the disparity of
age between Joseph and his brothers (v.^), and the assump-
tion that Rachel was still alive (^^). go down as a . . .
mourner\ Jacob will wear the mourner's garb till his death,
so that in the underworld his son may know how deep his
grief had been (Gu.). The shade was believed to appear in
Sheol in the condition in which it left the world (Schw. 63 f.).
— 36 (E) resuming ^sb, gge, further, on 39^
Ch. y.y.y^V\\\. —Judah and Tam ar (J).

Judah, separating himself from his brethren, marries a
Canaanitish wife, who bears to him three sons, 'Er, 'Onan
and Shelah (^~^). 'Er and 'Onan become in succession
the husbands of Tamar (under the levirate law), and die
without issue ; and Judah orders Tamar to remain a widow
in her father's house till Shekh should reach manhood (^~^-^).
Finding herself deceived, Tamar resorts to a desperate
stratagem, by which she procures offspring from Judah
himself (^2"^^). With the birth of her twin sons, Perez and
Zerah, the narrative closes (27-30j^
The story rests on a substratum of tribal history, being- in the main a

legendary account of the origin of the principal clans of Judah. To this
historical nucleus we may reckon such facts as these the isolation of :
Judah from the rest of the tribes (see on v.^) the mixed origin of its ;
leading families the extinction of the two oldest clans 'Er and 'Onan
; ;
the rivalry of the younger branches, Perez and Zerah, ending in the
F|"3b fjnip] cf. 44^^ On inf. abs. Qal used with Pu., see G-K. § 113 w,
35. iDip'i] <& <rvprixdr]<Tav 8^, adding Kai 9j\dov before iDmS. 36.— D'JiDm] Rd.
with all Vns. D^nDni as v.^^
29
;
450 JUDAH AND TAMAR (j)
supremacy of the former and (possibly) the superiority of these two (as
;
sons of Judah) to the more ancient Shelah (his grandson). See Steuer-
nagel, Einw. 79 f. where, however, the ethnological explanation is
;
carried further than is reasonable. —

It is obvious that the legend belongs
to a cycle of tradition quite independent of the story of Joseph. The
latter knows of no separation of Judah from his brethren, and this record
leaves no room for a reunion. Although P, who had both before him,
represents Judah and his sons as afterwards accompanying Jacob to
Egypt (46^-), there can be no doubt that the intention of this passage is
to relate the permanent settlement of Judah in Palestine. Where
precisely the break with the prevalent tradition occurs, we cannot
certainly determine. It is possible that the figure of Judah here is
simply a personification of the tribe, which has never been brought into
connexion with the family history of Jacob in this case the events :
reflected may be assigned to the period subsequent to the Exodus. It

seems a more natural supposition, however, that the legend ignores the
Exodus altogether, and belongs to a stratum of tradition in which the
occupation of Canaan is traced back to Jacob and his immediate descend-
—
ants (see pp. 418, 507). On some touches of mythological colouring in
the story of Tamar, see below, pp. 452, 454.
Source. —
The chapter is a pure specimen of Yahwistic narration, free
from redactional manipulation. The following characteristics of J may
"^
be noted m.T, '• " '3'y3 y^, '• "> v^yr\^^, ^^ nj^dh, 25 (3^32) p-^r'^,
: ; ;
; ; .
j;t, 26 further, the naming of the children by the mother, ^"' ; and the
;
resemblance of ^'^'^
to 25^^-. Since the sequence of 39^ on 37^ would be
harsh, it is probable that ch. 38 was inserted here by RJ^ (Ho.).
1-5. Judah founds a separate family at Adullam.— i.

went down from his brethren] Since the chapter has no con-
nexion with the history of Joseph, we cannot tell when or
where the separation is conceived to have taken place. From
the situation of 'Adullam^ it is clear that some place in the
central highlands is indicated. Adullam is possibly 'Id el-
Mlye (or 'Aid el- Aid), on the border of the Shephelah, 12 m.
SW of Bethlehem and 7 NE of Eleutheropolis (Buhl, GPy
193 Smith, HG, 229).
; It is marked on the Pal. Surv. map
as 1 1 50 ft. above sea-level.
The isolation of the tribe of Judah was a fact of capital importance

in the early history of Israel. The separation is described in Ju. i^^"
in thesong of Deborah (Ju. 5) Judah is not mentioned either for praise

or blame and his reunion with Israel is prayed for in Dt. 33L The
;
rupture of the Davidic kingdom, and the permanent cleavage between

south and north, are perhaps in part a consequence of the stronger
I. B'1] <& acpiKero the precise force here of noJ, * turn aside,'
: is doubt-
ful. The change of ny to Vk (Ba.) is unnecessary (cf. i Sa. 9^).
XXXVIII. i-io 451
infusion of foreig-n blood in the southern tribe. The verse sug-g-ests
that the Judahite settlement was at 'AduUam, where the tribe gained
first
a footing by alliance with a native clan named Hirah but Mey. (INS, ;
435 f.) thinks it presupposes a previous occupation of the region round

Bethlehem, and deals merely with an extension towards the Shephelah.
It is certainly difficult otherwise to account for the verb "M" (ct. 9j;!i, Ju.
i^) ; but were Judah's brethren ever settled at Bethlehem? Gu.'s
emendation, Tin, freed himself (see on 27^ cf. Hos. 12^), would relieve
*
;
the difficulty, but is too bold for a plain prose narrative.
2. A more permanent amalgamation with the Canaanites

is represented by Judah's marriage with Bath-Shuci or Bath-
Sheva (See on v.^"^). The freedom with which connubium
with the Canaanites is acknowledged (ct. 34. 24^) may be a
proof of the antiquity of the source (Ho. Gu.). — 5b. in Keziby
e^c] It is plausibly inferred that Kezib ( = 'Aksib, an un-
known locality in the Shephelah, Jos. 15**, Mic. i^*) was the
centre of the clan of Shelah ; though (J^ makes all three
births happen there.
6-1 1. Tamar's wrong. — 6. Tamar, the Heb. word for
date-palm, occurs twice as a female name in David's family
(2 Sa. 13^ 14^^)- There is therefore little probability that it
is here a personification of the city of the same name on the

S border of Palestine (Ezk. 47^^) (so Steuernagel). A mytho-
logical origin is suggested on p. 452 below. —As head of the
family, Judah chooses a wife for his first-born (24^ 34* 2121),
as he is also responsible for the carrying out of the levirate
obligation (^- ^^).
— 7. No crime is alleged against ' Er^ whose
untimely death was probably the only evidence of Yahwe's
displeasure with him (Pr. lo^^). — 8-10. '0?idny on the other
hand, is slain because of the revolting manner in which he
2. iD-fi] (& nc-fi. See on v.^^^—3. Nnpn] Better as w.'*-^ Nnpni {xxxW
Heb. MSS).—5. nW] (& 'LriKthfj. comp. the gentilic 'Jê', Nu. 2620.— n'm]
;
is impossible, and xix 'n'l little better. Rd. with (& n'hi. T^22] ux nntsa, —
cf. «:?)>, I Ch. 422. —
inx] (& nm. —
Nothing- can be made of the strange
renderings of ^^ in & and 'B : aiZ,Jl-» ^D ZoOl AO-CQÔ ;
quo nato
parere ultra cessavit (cf. 29^30^). —
?:] Dt. 25"- ''f ;
7. ni.T^] ^ 6 ê6y. — 8.
denom. from 05;, the term, techn. for * husband's brother in relation to '
— ——
the levirate institution. 9. dk n'ni] *as often as'; G-K. § 159 o. nn?>
(sc. semen)] in the sense of 'spoil,' 'make ineffective' (BDB). "j^j for
nn] only again Nu. 20^^ ; comp. ^^q, Ex. 3^^, Nu. 22^^- ^*' ^^ — 10. ntyj? ib'k]
(&y pr. n^Ô.

— — ;
persistently evaded the sacred duty of raising up seed to his

brother. It is not correct to say (with Gu.) that his only
offence was his selfish disregard of his deceased brother's
interests. — II. Judah sends Tamar home to her family, on
the pretext that his third son Shelah is too young to marry
her. His real motive is fear lest his only surviving son
should share the fate of *Er and Onan, which he plainly
attributes in some way to Tamar herself. in thy father's
house] according to the law for a childless widow (Lv. 22^^,
Ru. 18).
The custom of levirate marriage here presupposed prevailed widely

in primitive times, is still observed in many parts of the world.
and In
its Hebrew form does not appear to have implied more than the duty
it
of a surviving" brother to procure male issue for the oldest member of a

family, when he dies childless the first-born son ot the union is counted
:
the son, and is the heir, to the deceased and although in Dt. 25'^- the
;
widow is said to become the wife of her brother-in-law, it may be

questioned if in early times the union was more than temporary. It is
most naturally explained as a survival, under patriarchal conditions, of
some kind of polyandry, in which the wife was the common property
of the kin-group (Smith, KM'^, 146 ff.); and it naturally tended to be
relaxed with the advance of civilisation. Hence the law of Dt. 25-^"^*' is
essentially a concession to the prevalent reluctance to comply with the
custom. This is also illustrated by the conduct of 'Onan the sanctity :
of the obligation is so strong that he does not dare openly to defy it

yet his private family interest induces him to defeat its purpose. It is
noteworthy that the only other historical example of the law the —
analogous though not identical case of Boaz and Ruth also reveals the —
—
tendency to escape its operation. See Dri. Deut. 280 ff. (with the
authorities there cited) also Engert, Ehe- und Fa?nilienrecht, 15 ff. ;
;
Barton, S0\ 66 ff.

Judah's belief that Tamar was the cause of the deaths of 'Er and
'Onan {v.s.) may spring from an older form of the legend, in which she
was actually credited with death-dealing power. Stucken and Je.
recognise in this a common mythical motive, the goddess who slays —
—
her lovers, and point to the parallel case of Sara in the Book of Tobit
(3^). Tamar and Sara {Sarratu, a title of Istar) were originally forms of
IStar (ATLO-, 381 f.). The connexion is possible and if there be any ;
truth in Barton's speculation that the date-palm was sacred to I§tar {SO^^
92, 98, 102 ff.), it might furnish an explanation of the name Tamar.
12-19. Tamar's daring stratagem. —

12. Bath-Shud]
See the footnote. was comforted] a conventional phrase for
II. '3?', nK'ni] Ba. al. propose '^^, nv'Ri, after Lv. 22^* but see Is. 47".
;
— 12. y?t?"n3] Apparently a compound proper name, as in i Ch. 2^ =

— —
—
XXXVIII. II-I8 453
the efFect of the mourning ceremonies; see Jer. i6^. —The

death of Judah's wife is mentioned as a palliation of his
subsequent behaviour: *'even in early times it was con-
sidered not quite comme il faut for a married man to have
intercourse with harlots" (Gu.). — On the sheep-shearings see
31^®. Hirah mentioned here because
his associate^ (see v.^) is
ofthe part he has to play went tip

in the story (vv.20-23). . . .
to Timnah'] This cannot be the Danite Timnah (Jos. 15^^ 19*^,
Ju. 141- 2- ^), which lies lower than 'Adullam. Another Timnah
S of Hebron (Jos. 15^^), but unidentified, might be meant;
or it may be the modern Tibne, W of Bethlehem, though
this is only4 m. from 'Adullam, and room has to be found
for 'Enaim between them (but v.i. on v.^*). 14. her widow's —
garments^ Cf. Jth. 8^ 10^ 16^. — She assumes the garb of a
common prostitute,and sits, covered by the veil (see below
on v.2^), by the wayside; cf. Jer. 3^, Ezk. 16^^, Ep. Jer. 43.
— for she had covered her face\ This explains, not Judah's
15*
failure to recognise her, but his mistaking her for a harlot
(see v.^^). —
17. a kid of the goats] Cf. Ju. 15^. The present
of a kid on these occasions may be due to the fact that (as in
classical antiquity) the goat was sacred to the goddess of
love (Paus. vi. 25. 2 [with Frazer's Note, vol. iv. 106] ; cf.
Tac. Hist. and Lucian, Dial, meretr. 7. i) (Kn-Di.).

2, 3,
— 18. The master-stroke of Tamar's plot is the securing of
a pledge which rendered the identification of the owner
yjE'-nn (cf.i Ch. 3^ with 2 Sa. 11' etc.), through an intermediate yiB'-nn.
dt, both here and v.^ (but not i Ch. 2'), g-ives yir as the name of Judah's
wife. —
vnyn] fflÛ ^nyi, 'his shepherd,' wrongly. 13. on] 'husband's —
father,' i Sa. ^^•'^^\. Smith {KM^, 161 f.) finds in the Arabic usage a
distinct trace of ba al-polyandry the correlative is kanna, ** which
;
usually means the wife of a son or brother, but in the Hamasa is used
. . , to designate one's own wife." —
14. D?fii] so Dt. 22^2^ Jon. 3^ Read
either Dpni, Niph. (Gu.), or Djnni, Hithp., with juu. (as 24^^^ _Q,j,y nnsa] ^
|A>o90 1 f\ ^\<^*^j 'B in hivio itinerisy and ^^J take the meaning to
be at the cross-roads (of which there are several on the short way
* '
from 'Aid el- Ma to Tibne). The sense is good, and it is tempting to

think that these Vns are on the right track, though their rendering has
no support in Heb. usage. If D'Vy be a proper name it may be identical
with the unknown D:'y of Jos. 1$^^, in the Shephelah. ''h riJiPij nS Nini] (&
\^ njCi} «•? wni, better. — 15 end] (& + /cat ovk iiriyvw olMip
—
absolutely certain. and staff must have been the

Seal, cord,
insig-nia of a man
amongst the Israelites, as seal and
of rank
staff were among- the Babylonians (Herod, i. 195)* and
Egyptians (Erman, LAE, 228 f.). The cord may have been
used to suspend the amongst modern town Arabs
seal, as
(Robinson, BR, i. 36), or may have had magical properties
like those occasionally worn by Arab men (We. Heid. 166).
For illustrations of ancient Hebrew seals, see Benzinger,
Arch.'^^2, 179 f., 228 ff.
20-23. Judah
recover his pledge.— 20. It is
fails to
significant that Judah employs his fidus Achates Hirah in
this discreditable affair, and will rather lose his seal, etc.,
than run the risk of publicity (v.^^). 21. Where is that —
Kedeshah?\ strictly sacred prostitute,' one dedicated for
*
— * '
this purpose to Istar-Astarte, or some other deity (Dt. 23^^,
Hos. 4!^).
Thisis the only place where rvo~\^ appears to be used of an ordinary
harlot and Luther {INS, 180) points out that it is confined to the con-
;
versation of Hirah with the natives, the writer using n:ii. The code of
Hammurabi (§ no) seems to contemplate the case of a temple-votary
{kadistu, KA T^, 423 ; A TLO"^, 380) separating- herself for private prosti-
tution ; and it is possible that this custom was familiar to the Canaanites,
though not in Israel. —That the harlot's veil (vv.^'*' ^^) was a symbol of
dedication to I§tar the veiled goddess {KAT^, 276, 432 ; ATLO^, 109) is
possible, though it is perhaps more natural to suppose that the veiling
of I§tar is an idealisation of the veiling of her votaries, which rests on a
primitive sexual taboo (cf. the bridal veil 24^").
24-26. The vindication of —

Tamar. 24. As the widow
of 'Er, or the betrothed of Shelah, Tamar is guilty of adultery,
and it falls to Judah as head of the family to bring her to
justice.Lead her out\ 2i forensic term, Dt. 22'^^-'^^. let her —
he hum{\ Death by burning is the punishment imposed in
Hammurabi, § 157, for incest with a mother, and was doubt-
21. nopo] Au.ffi^5 Dipon (v."). If this reading be accepted, there is no

reason to hold that D'J'y (if a place-name at all) was Tamar's native
village. — Kin] xxx. N'nn ; but see 19^ etc. —
24. cWdd] xxx more correctly
* 'Zi(ppr]yida 5' ^Kacrros '^"^ (TKriirTpov xî-POTtoItjtov ^rr' eKaarip 5^ aK'îTTptf

?x^'
iveaTL TreTTOLTjfx^vov 7) fj.rj\ov^ podov ^ Kplvov 9i aUrds 7) fiXXo Tf &P€V yap iiri<Ti^/J.ov
oi) cr<pi po/jlos iari ^x^'** (^KrJKTpoy. —

Similarly Strabo, XVI. i. 20.
XXXVIII. 19-28 455
less the common punishment for adultery on the part of a
woman in ancient Israel. In later times the milder penalty
of stoning- was substituted (Lv. 20^^, Dt. 2223^-, Ezk. 16'*^,
Jn. 8^), the more cruel death being reserved for the prostitu-
tion of a priest's daughter (Lv. 21^; cf. Hamm. § no). —25.
By waiting moment, Tamar_makes her justifica-
till the last
tion as public and dramatically complete as possible. Ad-
dressing the crowd she says, To the man who oiions these
things^ etc. to Judah himself she flings out the challenge.
;
Recognise to whom this sealy etc., belong! —26. She is in the^

right as agahist me (G-K. § 133 3^; cf. Jb. 4^^ 32^)] i.e., her
conduct is justified by the graver wrong done to her by
Judah.
To suppose that incidents like that recorded in ^^"^^ were of frequent

occurrence in ancient Israel, or that it was the duty of the father-in-law
under any circumstances to marry his son's widow, is to miss entirely
the point of the narrative. On the contrary, as Gu. well shows (365 f.),
it is just the exceptional nature of the circumstances that explains the
writer's obvious admiration for Tamar's heroic conduct. **

Tamar shows
her fortitude by her disregard of conventional prejudice, and her deter-
mination by any means in her power to secure her wifely rights within
her husband's family. To obtain this right the intrepid woman dares
the utmost that womanly honour could endure, stoops to the level of —
an unfortunate girl, and does that which in ordinary cases would lead to
the most cruel and shameful death, bravely risking honour and life on
the issue. At the same time, like a true mother in Judah, she manages
her part so cleverly that the dangerous path conducts her to a happy
—
goal." It follows that the episode is not meant to reflect discredit on
the tribe of Judah. It presents Judah's behaviour in as favourable a
light as possible, suggesting extenuating circumstances for what could
not be altogether excused ; and regards that of Tamar as a glory to
the tribe (cf. Ru. 4I2).
27-30. Birth of Perez and Zerah.— The story closely

resembles that of Rebekah in 252^-26 (3327^ = 252*^)^ and is
probably a variation of the same originally mythical theme
(see p. 359). —
28. The scarlet thread probably represents
some feature of the original myth (note that in 252^ <
the first
25. On the syntax, see G-K. §§ ii6m, v, 142^; Dri. T. § 166 ff.—
e"N^] St. constr. with cl. as gen. ; —
Ho. al. point b"n^. nonnn] fern, only
here.—D''?'nsn] jua(&F<SEO "^'ntn (as \.^^).—2lb. p-Vr'3] see on i8'.~28.
T-jri'i] sc. ;nSn (G-K. § 144 ^) ; (& +6 els.
45^ Joseph's temptation (j)
came out red^). The forced etymologfy of Zerah (v.^) could

not have suggested it. —29. What a breach hast thou made
for thyself!\ The name Perez expresses the violence with
which he secured the priority. 30. ZeraK\ An Edomite —
clan in 36^^- ^^. On the etymology, v.i.
To the name Perez, Cheyne {TBIy 357) aptly compares Plutarch's

account of the birth of Typhon, brother of Osiris **
neither in due time,
:
nor in the right place, but breaking through with a blow, he leaped out
throug-h his mother's side" {de Isid. et Os. c. 12), The ascendancy of —
the Perez clan has been explained by the incorporation of the powerful
families of Caleb and Jerahmeel, i Ch. 2'-» (so Sta. GVI, i. 158 f.) but ;
a more obvious reason is the fact that David's ancestry was traced to
this branch (Ru. 4I8-22).
Ch. ^XXV^.—Joseph is cast into Prison (J).
Joseph is sold by the Ishmaelites (37^^* ^^) to an Egyptian

householder, who finds him so capable and successful that ere
long he entrusts him with the whole administration of his
estate But his master's wife conceives a guilty passion
(^"^).
for him, and when her advances are repelled, falsely accuses
him of attempted outrage, with the result that he is thrown
into prison C^"^^). Here again he wins the favour of his
superior, and is soon charged with the oversight of the
prison (21-23).
Source. —
With the exception of a harmonising gloss in ^*'a, and a
sprinkling of E variants (discussed in the notesj, the whole passage is
from J. It represents the chief divergence between the two recensions
of the history of Joseph. In J, Joseph is first sold to a private Egyptian
(njJD {J"N, v.^), then cast into the state prison in the way here narrated,
where he gains the confidence of the (unnamed) governor, so that when
the butler and baker are sent thither they naturally fall under his
29. 3TP? 'H'l] An ungrammatical use of the ptcp. Rd. with Ball
— —
3Tn iD? 'H'l (cf. 19"). ps nna] cogn. ace. The rendering as a question
(nD=*why' De. Di. Dri.) is less natural than that given above; and
:
to detach p£3 y^V [jju. 13''?^] as a separate exclamation (* A breach upon

thee ') is worse.
!
(& (tL dieKdirrj 8lcl ak <f>pay/x6s ;) "BSS take the vb. in a
pass, sense. —
«ip'i] xxx ^^^ Nipni (sov.^"). —
30. nnj] as a Heb. word would
mean '
rising ' (of the sun, Is 60^) or * autochthonous '
( = nnm). A con-
nexion with the idea of redness is difficult to establish. It is com-
* '
monly supposed that there is a play on the Aram. Nnnnt (which is used
here by S^T^, and is the equivalent of Heb. ':^), and Bab. zaûritu (so
De. Dri. Gu. al.) but this is not convincing.
;
— — — ;
XXXVIII. 29-XXXIX. 4 457

charg-e. In E, Joseph is sold at once to Potiphar (sf^), the palace officer
in whose house the butler and baker are afterwards confined (40^*) and ;
Joseph, without being- himself a prisoner, is told off to wait on these

eminent persons (40''). The imprisonment, therefore, is indispensable in
J, and at least embarrassing- in E. —
This conclusion is partly confirmed
by the literary phenomena m.r, 2. s. e ^he Ishmaelites, ^ Tnin, ^ wh^n,
: . ; ;
»• 28
; in NS'D, ^ ; hhin, ". It is somewhat disconcerting to find that none
of these occur in the central section, ^"^^ and (We. Comp.^ 56) positively
;
assigns °'^^ to E, because of the phrases nt<-\D ns'i iNn ns', ^^ (cf, 29^'^) 'iTI
'n onnnn 'n, ' (cf. 15I 221- 20 40^ 48I) iNn, ^^ and dmSnS, ». ; These are not
;
decisive (see Di. 403 ; Ho. 231), and on the whole the material argument
must be held to outweigh the dubious linguistic evidence that can be
—
adduced on the other side. Procksch (42 f.) assigns '"^^ to E and ^^'^ to
J ;but nothing is gained by the division.
Joseph becomes the controller of an Egyptian

1-6.
estate. —
I. But Joseph had been taken down, etc.] while his
father was mourning over him as one dead (37^^^-) the ;
notice resumes 37^^*. a certain Egyptian] who is nameless

in J [vA.). —
2. The secret of Joseph's success a combination :
of ability with personal charm which marked him out as a

favourite of Yahwe 23j, ^- ^- î-
remained in the house, etc.]
(cf.
under his master's observation, instead of being sent to

work in the field. — 4a. served him] i.e., '
became his personal
I. The words D^nnen— ns'tiis are a repetition by RJE from 37^^ (E), in
order to harmonise the two sources. But the contradiction appears

(i) in the meaningless ""^^D £J"n after the specific designation (this is not
to be got rid of by Ebers's observation that under a Hyksos dynasty
a high official was not necessarily a native Egyptian), and (2) the
improbability of a eunuch being married (though cases of this kind are
—
known [Ebers, 299]). ns'ois] (& UeT€(pp7][s], an exact transcription of
Eg. Pedephre= He whom the sun-god gives (see DB, i. 665b EB,
'
'
;
3814) but the long o of the Heb. has not been explained.
; Cf. Heyes,
105-112. —
Dno] means 'eunuch' in NH. Aram. Arab, (as is shown by the
denom. vbs. = be impotent '), and there is no case in OT where the
'
strict sense is inapplicable (Ges. Th. 973 b). That such a word should
be extended to mean courtier in general is more intelligible than
*
'
the reverse process (so Heyes, 122), in spite of the opinion of several
Assyriologists who derive it from ia rest =' he who is the head (Zimmern, '
ZDMG, liii. 116; KAT*, 649).— D^nnnn -\w'] (& apxifj-dyetpos, a title like ter
D'pts'Dn and D'siN.i 'b' in ch. 40 (E). Cf. 'on 3n, 2 Ki. 25^^-, Jer. 39^- 40^"^-
etc., Dn. 2^*. The o^nô were apparently the royal cooks or butchers
(i Sa. g^^-), who had come to be the bodyguard (Smith, OT/C^, 262I).—
2. n'h)iD iff'n] The intrans. Hiph. is thought by Di. Gu. al. to be incon-
sistent with J's usage (vv.^- ^3 24^^) therefore E. 4. vrya] juxffirU 'rya
;
—
VJ-iK. iS-^'-Sdi] Mi. inserts ntrN as v.** *. 4a is wholly assigned to E by
*''^-
—
—a
45^ Joseph's temptation (j)
attendant.* —The phrase is a variant from E (cf. 40*). —4b.

In J, Joseph's position is far higher, that, namely, oi mer-per
{mer-puy mer en peri-t^ e^c), or superintendent of the house-
hold, frequently mentioned in the inscriptions (Ebers, Aeg",
303 if. Erman, LAE, 187 f.). 6a. knew not with hz?n]
; — (i.e,
with Joseph [v.^]) held no reckoning with him

:
'
'
;
—
hyperbolical expression for absolute confidence. —6b is intro-
ductory to ^^•.
7-20. Joseph tempted by his master's wife. 7-10. —

The first temptation. The solicitation of a young man by
a married woman is a frequent theme of warning in Pr.
1-9. — 9a. ^sp/X does not mean *
there is none ' (which would
require Tt?), but *
he is not.' — pb. sin against God] The
name Yahwe is naturally avoided in conversation with a
foreigner. All the more striking is the consciousness of
the divine presence which to the exiled Israelite is the
ultimate sanction of morality. — II, 12. The final tempta-
tion. — On the freedom of social intercourse between the
sexes, see Ebers, 306 f. But the difficulties raised about
Joseph's access to the harem do not really arise, when we
remember that J is depicting the life of a simple Egyptian
family, and not that of a high palace official (see Tu.).
13-20. The woman's revenge. 14. A covert appeal to the —
jealousy of the men-servants against the hated Hebrew, and
to the fears of the women, whom she represents as unsafe
from insult {to mock us). An additional touch of venom
lurks in the contemptuous reference to her husband as he.' *
— Hebrew may be here a general designation of the Asiatic
Gu. ; but ]n n^^D'i pleads strongly for J. — 8. hd] mx noiND (v.^). —non]
AufflrÛ in'33. —
and noy nvn'? look like variants but one
10. nbsN 33B''? ;
swallow does not make a summer, and it would be rash to infer an

Elohistic recension. —
II. mn DVna] A very obscure expression, see BDB,
400 b. Of the other occurrences (Dt. 6^, Jer. 44" Ezr. 9'- 1^ Neh. g^H) all
except the last are perfectly transparent as [it is] this day, a sense :
* '
—
quite unsuitable here. One must suspect that the phrase, like the kindred
dVj, and mn dvj (cf. esp. i Sa. 22^- ^*), had acquired some elusive idiomatic
meaning which we cannot recover. Neither on a certain day (G-K. * '
§ 1265) nor *on this particular day' (BDB) can be easily justified. 13. —
on] MSS jja(K + N:s'i ("-is). _i4. 133 pnsS] see on 268.— 15. '"îfK] wx^F
{pallium quod tenebam) read nu, —wrongly, since to have said this
— — ' •
XXXIX. 4-21 459

Bedouin {A TLO^^ 387) but see on 40^^^. 19. Her distorted
;
account of the facts has the desired effect on her husband.

— Ms •wrath was kindled\ against Joseph, of course. There
is no hint that he suspected his wife, and was angry with
—
her also (De. Di.). 20. Imprisonment would certainly not
be the usual punishment for such a crime as Joseph was
believed to have committed but the sequel demanded it, ;
Joseph's further career depending on his being lodged in

the place where the king's prisoners were bound. That he
became a king's slave (according to Hamm. § 129) is not
indicated (against Je. ATLO'^^ 388). The term for prison
(v.i,) is peculiar, and recurs only ^^- ^* 40^- ^. ^'^-
To this episode in Joseph's life there is an Egyptian parallel so

close that we can hardly fail to recog-nise in it the original of the
Hebrew story. It is the Tale of the two brothers in the d'Orbiney
*
'
Papyrus, assigned by Egyptologists to the 19th dynasty. Two brothers

lived together, the older Anpu having a house and wife, and the younger
Batu serving him in the field. One day Batu enters the house to fetch
seed for the sowing, and is tempted by his brother's wife, exactly as
Joseph was by his mistress. Furiously indignant **like a panther for —
—
rage " he rejects her advances, out of loyalty to the brother who has
been like a father to him, and expresses horror of the great sin *
which she had suggested. Promising silence, he returns to his brother

in the field. In the evening Anpu comes home to find his wife covered
with self-inflicted wounds, and listens to a tale which is a perfect
parallel to the false accusation against Joseph. Anpu seeks to murder
his brother ; but being at last convinced of his innocence, he slays his
wife instead. Here the human interest of the story ceases, the re-
mainder being fairy lore of the most fantastic description, containing
at least a reminiscence of the Osiris myth. (See Ebers, 311 ff. Erman, ;
LAE, 378 ff. ; Petrie, Egypt

36 ff. Volter, Aeg. u. die Bibel, 50 f.
Tales, ii. ;
[who takes the story as a whole to be founded on the myth of Set and
Osiris].) It is true that the theme is not exclusively Egyptian (see the
numerous parallels in Lang, Myth, Ritual, and Religion, ii. 303 ff.) but ;
the fact that the scene of the biblical narrative is in Egypt, and the
close resemblance to the Egyptian tale, make it extremely probable
that there is a direct connexion between them.
21-23. Joseph in prison. — His good fortune and con-

would have been to betray herself (De. Di.). — 17 end] (& + Kal elTriv /xoi
KoiiJ.r]d7jcrofJi,ai fierd aov [ffi^ Koi/iiridrjTi fier — 'DnnD

^fiov]. 18. \Tl] ffi ws 8i
iJKov<rev 8ti Côxra. — on] C&<S + N^'i.— 20. inon nu] Only in 20-23 ^q^h
q^^
The name may be Egyptian (see Ebers, 317 ff. ; Dri. Z)B, ii. 768a, n.),
but has not been satisfactorily explained. ib'n Dipp] G-K. § 130 c. —
moN] so XXX. (and also in v.^^) but rd. with Qre 'tdn p). 21. un jn'i] (as
; —
— —
460 JOSEPH IN PRISON (e)
sequent promotion are described in terms nearly identical

with those of vv.^"^. — In
J, the governor of the prison is
anonymous, and Joseph is made superintendent of the
other prisoners.
Ch. XL. Joseph proves his Gift of interpreting Dreams (E).
Joseph is appointed to wait on two officers of the court

who have been put under arrest in his master's house {^'^),
and finds them one morning- troubled by dreams

which for
they have no interpreter (^~^). He interprets the dreams
^9-i9j^
which are speedily verified by the event (20-22^^ g^^^
his eager request that the chief butler would intercede for
him with Pharaoh (^**-) remains unheeded p^).
Source. —
The main narrative, as summarised above, obviously be-
longs to E (see p. 456 f.). Joseph is not a prisoner (as in J 39^'*^-)> but
the servant of the captain of the g-uard (of. 37^ 41^') the officers are ;
not strictly imprisoned, but merely placed in ward (norcn) in Potiphar's ' '
house (^" *• ^) and Joseph was stolen from his native land (^^* of. 37^^*),
;
' '
;
not sold by his brethren as 37^** (J). Fragments of a parallel narrative —

in J can be detected in ^^^^ (a duplicate of 2), sa^g (from 'r\ n'a-Sx) *»
(Joseph a prisoner), ^^ (the officers imprisoned), and

'^^'^.
In the —
phraseology note J's nsN.i, i- ^^ E's D'pcon ib', dên.t 'b', 2. 9. 16. 20. 21.
r\'îZ'T:::,:\, \\
22- 23 .
J -^r^^:^ n,3^ sa^g. 5b
II
E ^3tt*D, 3aa.
4. 7. .
^^hilc D'nnDH HB', 3- 4^ and ono, 2-
7,
connect the main narrative with 37^^ (E). That in J the turn of Joseph's —
fortune depended on the successful interpretation of dreams does not
explicitly appear, but may be presumed from the fact that he was
afterwards brought from the dungeon to interpret them (41^^"*^ J).
1-8. Pharaoh's officers in disgrace: their dreams.

— I. the butler . . . the baker] J writes as if the king had
only one servant of each class his notions of a royal
:
establishment are perhaps simpler than E's. In Babylonia

the highest and oldest court offices are said to have been
those of the baker and the butler {A TLO^y 54 ; cf. Zimmern,
ZDMGi liii* 119 f.)- 2. chief of the butlers — . . . bakers (E)]
Ex. 321 ii^ i2^^t) gen. of obj. = * favour towards him.' 22. 'K'y] On —
omission of subj., see G-K. § 1165. nry hm nih] ©a. ai. o^^ 23. irn] — —
(K TTCLvra yap ijv 5td xf'pos T. —
n'7!iD] (HSi + iv rais x^P'^'-^ avrov.
I. HENm— npc'o] On the synt., see G-K. §§ 128 a, 129-^ Dav. § 27(6): ;
cf. v.^ — 2. î.'p'i is the regular continuation of the time-clause in ^* (E).

VD'nj] with so-called qamez impurum \ so always except in const, st.
—
XL
lîtXiK. 22-XL. II 461
The rise of household slaves to high civil dignity seems to
have been characteristic of the Egyptian government under

the 19th dynasty (Erman, LAE, 105). Titles corresponding
to those here used are 'scribe of the sideboard,' 'superin-
tendent of the bakehouse,' etc. (Erman, 187). —3a. The
officers are not incarcerated, but merely detained in custody
pending investigation (Gu.). 3b (J), bound] i.e. 'confined'; —
—
4. Joseph is charged with the duty of waiting on
cf. 3922*-.
them (niK' as 39^, 2 Sa. I'f^), 5-8 is a skilful piece of

narration : the effect of the dreams is vividly depicted before
their character is disclosed. — 5- ô,ch according to the
interpretation of his dream] a sort of idem per idem, con-
struction, meaning that the dreams had each a peculiar
significance. — —
5b (J). 8. no one to interpret it] No pro-
fessional interpreter, such as they would certainly have
consulted had they been at liberty. interpretations belong
to God] The maxim is quite in accord with Egyptian
sentiment (Herod, ii. 83), but in mouth of Joseph it
the
expresses the Hebrew idea that inspiration comes directly
from God and is not a nn^S?0 O^K^]N mVD (Is. 29^3).
On the Eg-yptian belief in divinely inspired dreams, see Ebers, 321 f. ;

Wiedemann, Rel. of the Ancient Eg. 266 ff. Heyes, I74ff. on the ; :
belief in classical antiquity, Hom. //. ii. 5-34, Od. iv. 795 fF. ; Cicero,
De divin. i. § 39 ff. etc. ; in modern Egypt, Lane, ME^y i. 330. While
this idea wasshared by the Israelites, the interpretation of dreams,
fully
as a distinct art or gift, is rarely referred to in OT (only in the case of
Joseph, and that of Daniel, which is larg-ely modelled on it). Elsewhere
the dream either co7itains the revelation (20^'''' etc.), or carries its sig-
nificance on its face (2812^- 3710), See Sta. BTh. § 63. i.
9-19. The dreams interpreted. —9-1 1. The had

butler
seen a vine pass rapidly through the stages of growth
its ;
had seemed to squeeze the ripe grapes into a cup and present
(40' etc.). — ^3. Better perhaps nctj-oa (cf. v.'*), with n'3 as ace. of
n-^tJ-DD]
place. So V.'. —
= for some time G-K. § 139 h. 6. qyT] be fret-
4. 0-0' *
' ; — *
ful' ; elsewhere late (Dn. i^\ Pr. 193, 2 Ch. 26^" f).—8. px nns] On the
order, G-K. § 152 o. — D'nns] (& oanns.
nm33 Nim] Not when it budded (<S®^°), for such a use of ? with
10. * '
a ptcp. (G-K. § 164^) is dubious even in the Mishnah {JQR, 1908, 697 f.).
If the text be retained we must render *as if budding' (Dri. T. p. 172^).
— — ——
462 JOSEPH IN PRISON (e)
it to Pharaoh, —
a mixture of the realistic' and the fantas- * *
tic' which belongs to the psychology of the dream (Gu.).

It is disputed whether the drinking of the fresh juice is
realism or phantasy. '' The ordinary interpretation is that

the king drank the fresh grape-juice ; but as the butler sees
the natural process of the growth of the grapes take place
with dream-like swiftness, so probably it is taken for granted
that the juice became wine in similar fashion " (Ben. ; so Gu.).
On the other hand, Ebers (Durch Gosen z. Sinai'^^ 492) cites
two texts in which a beverage prepared by squeezing grapes
into water is mentioned. — 12, I3. The interpretation : the
butler will be restored to his office within three days. lift up
thy head] Commonly understood of restoration to honour.
But in view of the fact that the phrase is used of the baker
also, it may be doubted if it be not a technical phrase for
release from prison (as it is in 2 Ki. 25^''', Jer. 52^^). — 14, 15.
Joseph's petition. remember me] On the difficult construc-
tion, v.z. —-from this house] Not the prison (as Vns., below),
but Potiphar's house, where he was kept as a slave. 15a.
—
I was stolen] cf. 3728aa ^gj^ ^^^ land of the Hebrews] The ex>
Ball emends (after f& koX avrr] 6dX\ov<Ta) mi^D N'm (cf.Jb. 14^ Ps. 92") ;
Kit. nrins?. — nî] The masc. f.4
does not occur (in this sense) in bib. Heb.,
and a contraction of nn— to n— doubtful (G-K. § 91 ^) ; hence it is
is
better to read nxa as ace. :

* it (the vine) went up in blossom.' It is pos-
sible that here and Is. 18' ny: means 'berry-cluster' ; see Derenbourg-,
ZATW, 301 f.
V. —
I'j'tfnn] lit. 'cooked'; Hiph. only here. Note the —
asyndetous construction, expressing' the rapidity of the process. 13. —
-H^NTriN no''^ aSc fivrjaeifia-eTai . . . U<S®^°.
ttjs dpxvs (rov; similarly
I?] lit. —
'pedestal,' used metaphorically as here in 41^', Dn. n?. 20. 21. ss-j-^ j^^ —
'jniDrDN '3] (& dXXd ixvfiadrjTt /xov, U
tantum memento mei ; similarly 5 and
5r°J. Something like this must be the meaning ; the difficulty is (since
a precative generally disallowed in Heb.) to fit the sense to any
pf. is
known use of the bare pf. (a) If it be pf. of certitude, the nearest analogy
seems to me to be Ju. 15', where on "3 has strong affirmative force, per-
haps with a suppressed adjuration, as 2 Ki. 5^^° ('n:£n dn 'd mn- 'n) 'thou :
wilt surely remember me.' To supply a negative sent, like I desire *
nothing [except that thou remember me]' (G-K. § i63<f De. Str.), destroys ;
the idea of pf. of certainty, and is a doubtful expedient for the additional
reason that dn 'd may mean 'except,' but hardly 'except that.' (d) It
may be fut. pf., in which case the DN must have its separate conditional
sense and then it is better (with We.) to change o to tin
; only, if thou :
'
remember me.' The objection (De. Di.) that the remembrance is too
—— — — — —
XL. 12-19 463
pression is an anachronism in the patriarchal history. It is
barely possible that both here and in 39^*-^^ (41^^) there is a

background of the legends,
faint reminiscence of the historical
the early occupation of Palestine by Hebrew tribes. 15b (J)
was probably followed in the original document by an ex-
planation of the circumstances which led to his imprison-
ment. 16-19. The baker's dream contains sinister features
which were absent from the first, the decisive difference
being that while the butler dreamed that he actually per-
formed the duties of his office, the baker only sought to do
so, and was prevented (Gu.). 16. three baskets of 'white
bread] The meaning of ^")n, however, is doubtful (v.i,). —
upon my head] See the picture of the court-bakery of
Rameses iii. in Ebers, Aeg. 332; Erman, LAEy 191. Ac-
cording to Ebers, the custom of carrying on the head (Herod,
ii. 35) was not usual in ancient Egypt except for bakers.
17. in the uppermost basket] Were the other two empty (Ho.
Ben.) ? or were they with inferior bread for the court
filled
(Gu.)? all manner of bakemeats] The court -baker of

Rameses iii. "is not content with the usual shapes used for
bread, but makes his cakes in all manner of forms. Some
are of a spiral shape like the ' snails ' of our confectioners ;
others are coloured dark-brown or red," etc. (Erman, 192).

while the birds kept eating] In real life he would have driven
off the birds (cf. 15^^) ; in the dream —and this is the ominous
circumstance —he cannot. 19. lift thy head from off thee]
In view of the fulfilment, it is perhaps better (with Ball) to
remove y^Vi^ as a mistaken repetition of the last word of the
v., and to understand the phrase of the baker's release from
prison (see on v.^^). The verb hang may then refer to the
mode of execution, and not merely (as generally supposed)
essential an element of the request to be made a mere condition, has no

great weight ; and might be met by giving Dx interrogative force (Ho.).
See, further, Dri. T. § 119(5).— Nrn'tyyi] The only case of consec. pf. fol-
lowed by NJ 105 *).— HTn n'n.rp] ffiU<SE^J seem to have read
(G-K. §
nm nurr|D, or nin n'3p.— 16. nh] Hit. \ey., commonly derived from
nnbn
sj mn, be white
' so virtually (S Aq. TB&W but W^ * of nobility (nn^).
' ; ; '
Others (Ra. al.) understand it as a characteristic of the baskets per- :

•
forated (from nin, hole '). The /SaiVd (of palm-leaves) of 2. seems to
' *
— —
464 Joseph's elevation (je)
to the exposure of the decapitated corpse. Decapitation is
said to have been a commoner punishment in Egypt than

hanging, but the latter was not unknown (Ebers, 334). The
destruction of the corpse by birds must have been specially
abhorrent to Egyptians, from the importance they attached
body after death. For OT examples,
to the preservation of the
see Dt. 21^^*-,
Jos. Sa. 4^^, and esp. 2 Sa. 21^-^^.
lo^^, 2
20-23. The dreams fulfilled. 20. That it was custom- —

ary for the Pharaoh to celebrate his birthday by court
assemblies and granting of amnesties, is proved for the Ptole-
maic period by the tables of Rosetta and Canopus. lifted the
head] see on v.^^. 23. The notice of the butler's ingratitude
forms an effective close, leaving the reader expectant of
further developments.
Ch. XL I. Joseph becomes Viceroy of Egypt (JE, P).
Two years after the events of ch. 40, the king of Egypt
has a wonderful double dream, which none of his magicians
is able to interpret The chief butler is naturally re-
(^~^).
minded of own experience, and mentions Joseph, who is

his
forthwith summoned into the royal presence i^~^'^). Having
interpreted the dreams as a prophecy of a great famine (^^~^^),
Joseph adds some sage advice on the right way to cope with
the emergency (33-36J ^nd Pharaoh is so .
impressed by his
sagacity that he entrusts him with the execution of the
scheme, and makes him absolute ruler of Egypt (^'^~^^). In
pursuance of the policy he had foreshadowed, Joseph stores
the surplus of seven years of plenty, and sells it during the
subsequent famine (*^~^'^).
Analysis. —The connexion of this chapter with the preceding appears

from ^* and ^"^^ : note D'p'^'on -\^, D'SNn V, D'nnun 'v, tcsj-d, fjitp (40^) ; Joseph
reston Aramaic (Field).— 19. T'?yc^] Om. by two MSS and "S (Ba. Kit.).
—20. -r\i< m"?.!] as Ezk. 16^ cf. G-K. § 69 w, 121 b. 21. npyn] is never
; —
elsewhere used of the office of butler perhaps over his [Pharaoh's]
:
'
drink (as we should say, his cellar '), as Lv. 1 1**, 1 Ki. 10^^, Is. 32*
'
*
(so Ges. Th.f Di.). —

23. innDci] Expressing " a logical or necessary con-
sequence of that which immediately precedes" (G-K. § iii /); cf. Day.
§47.
— — —
XLI. 1-4 465
the servant of the 'on 'v the officers confined in his ' house ; Joseph
; '
*with them (^^ cf. ô^- *) and comp. ^^ with 4o^ In the first half of the
' ;
chapter there is no sufficient reason to suspect a second source except

in ""^ (J) the repetitions and shght variations are not greater than can
;
be readily explained by a desire for variety in the elaboration of detail.

The whole of this section i}''^^) may therefore be safely assigned to E
(cf. DniN nms-pNi, ^, inx px nnsi, ^^ -with 40*"'
with 40**^).— In the second ;
^^
half, however, there are slight diversities of expression and representa-

tion which show that a parallel narrative (J) has been freely utilised.
Thus, in ^ Joseph recommends the appointment of a single dictator, in
** the appointment of overseers in ^ a fifth part is to be stored, in
*
' ;
^' ^ all the corn of the good years ; in ^'^ô- the collection is to be cen-
tralised under the royal authority, in ^^ localised in the different cities ;
-13 ia!£ alternates with '?3n
pp (^^^'a- 49 36a. 48)^ Further, 3« seems ^9 « 44 u I ; u .
and *^^ *^^ ^"^ (yns 'tiia = nD'eis) can hardly be from E, who has employed
II
;
the name for another person (37^^). Some of these differences may, no
doubt, prove to be illusory but taken cumulativelj'^ they suffice to prove
;
that the passage is composite, although a satisfactory analysis cannot

be given. For details, see the notes below and consult Ho. 234 ; Gu. ;
380 f. ; Pro. 43 f. *^ is from P, and ^^^ is a gloss.
1-8. Pharaoh's dreams. — 2. from the Nile {v.i.)\ the

source of Egypt's (Erman, LAE^ 425 fF.), worshipped
fertility
as 'the father of the gods,' and at times identified with

Osiris or Amon-re (Erman, Handbook^ 14 f., 80 ff.). seven
cowsy etc.] ''According to Diod. Sic. i. 51, the male ox is the
symbol of the Nile, and sacred to Osiris, the inventor of
agriculture {tb. i. 21). . . . The Osiris-steer often appears
accompanied by seven cows, e.g. on the vignettes of the old
and new Book of the Dead" {ATLO^, 389).— 4. The devour-
ing of one set of cows by the other is a fantastic but suggestive
feature of the dream the symbolism is almost transparent.
;
I. D'?n nynsi] Participial el. as apodosis ; see Dri. T. § 78 (3). — nN\n] An

Eg. loan-word {îotr, 'ior= 'stream'), used in OT of the Nile and its
canals (except Is. 33^^ Jb. 28^**, Dn. 12^^') found also in Ass. in the form
;
ydaru. See Ebers, 337 f. Steindorff, BA, 612 (cf. 171). 2. inx (41^^
; i. —
Jb. 8^^)] Nile-grass = Eg. ahu, from aha^ be green (Ebers, 338). (&.
* ' * '
&Xei occurs also vv.^- 1», Is. 19', Sir. 40^^. 3. mp^1] m. nipnr(so v.*). It is —
naturally difficult to decide which is right but Ba. pertinently points to ;
the alliterations as determining the choice read therefore 'n in '• *• i^* :
20- 27^ but in ^- ^,

''=\
—
in other words, 't always of the cows and always
of the ears.
—
'?2iN] (& om., thus making all the 14 cows stand together.
''n
4. n:'7DNni] <& + V^^ so '• ô- 24. (^ has many similar variations (which
;
need not be noted), revealing a tendency to introduce uniformity into the

description.
30
— — ;•
—5-7- The second dream more fantastic and

is, if possible,
at the same time more Masted with the east-wind
explicit. — 6.
(^ a.vîk6(^Bopoi)\ the dreaded sirocco or Hamsln^ which blows

from the SE from February to June, destroying- vegetation,
and even killing the seed-corn in the clods (Ebers, 340;
Erman, LAE^ 9; Smith, HGy 67 ff.). 8. all the magicians —
and wise men of Egypt'] The possessors of occult knowledge
of all sorts, including the interpretation of dreams (see p. 461 )
comp. Tac. Hist. iv. 83: " Ptolemaeus sacerdotibus . . .
^gyptiorum, quibus mos talia intellegfere, nocturnos visus

aperit"; see Ebers, 341-349. The motive —the confutation
of heathen magic by a representative of ^ the true religion —
is repeated in the histories of Moses (Ex. 7-9) and Daniel
(chs. 2. 5) ; cf. Is. 47^2 e^c.
Joseph summoned to interpret the dreams.

9-14.
9. The butler's ungrateful memory is stimulated by the
opportunity of ingratiating himself with his royal master,
though this requires him to make mention o/*his old offence.
— 12. according to each mans dream, he interpreted] Note the
order of ideas as contrasted with v.^^ (40^) • there is a pre-
established harmony between the interpretation and the
dream, and the office of the interpreter is to penetrate the
imagery of the dream and reach the truth it was sent to
convey. —
13. / was restored he was hanged] Lit. Me . . .
'
one restored,' etc., according to G-K. § 144 d, e. To suppose

the omission of Pharaoh^ or to make Joseph the subj., is
barely admissible. — 14. and they brought him hastily from the
dungeon] is a clause inserted from shaved himself] hisJ.
head and beard, — a custom which seems to have been
peculiar to the priests under the New Empire (Erman, LAE,
219; cf. Herod, ii. 37).
8. Dysni] 'was perturbed'; as Dn. 2^ (2^ Hithp.), Ps. 77'. D'Dcnn] —

Only in this ch., in Ex. 7-9 (P), and (by imitation) in Dn. 2^. The
word is thus practically confined to Egyptian mag-icians, though no
Eg. etymology has been found and it may be plausibly derived from
;
—
Heb. tnn, stylus. onx] Read with (5 inx, after iD'?n the dream is 'one ;
(vv.=^^-^). — 9. nyis-riN] jxt better 'a '?n. — ^NnnJ ffi 'xen (sing-.). The resem-
blance of the cl. {^^) to 40^ does not prove it to be from J (Gu.). — lO. "t.n] *sx
DriN, ffi ijnN. — II. no'^m-i] G-K. § 49^. — 12. nna— nn£3'i] ffi Kal awiKpivev ijfjup.
— — — ——
XLI. 5-28 467
15-24. Pharaoh's recital of his dreams. 15. thou —
canst hear a dremn to interpret z't] i.e., *
thou canst interpret
a dream when thou hearest it ' : Heb. subordinates the em-
phatic clause where we would subordinate the condition.
16. Comp. 40^. — The answer (on the form, v.z.) exhibits a
fine combination of religious sincerity and courtly deference.
— 17-21. The first dream. —
The king gives a vivid subjective
colouring to the recital by expressing the feelings which the
dream excited. This is natural, and creates no presumption
that a parallel narrative is drawn upon. Similarly, the slight
differences in phraseology (iNn for nxiD, ril^"^, etc.) are due to
the literary instinct for variety. The second dream. 22-24.
25-32. The interpretation. 25-27a. The general out- —
line of the interpretation the dream is one it is a presage
: ;
of what is to happen the number seven refers to years.

;
The methodical exposition is meant to be impressive. 27b

brings the climax: There shall he seven years offamine (so
Pro. v.i.), —
28. It is uncertain whether x^n refers back to ^^b
(*This is what [1 meant when] I said to Pharaoh'), or to ^^^
15. yOBTi] Oratio ohliqua after noNJ? (without 'd), G-K. § 157 a Dav. ;
§ 146, R. I. — 16. nj;^?] 'Apart from me' (C^ 'ncDin |D n^), used as
lit.
142*. )sx<& read n:j;:. n^ D'h^n nj;^^3 = Apart from God, one will not be
*
answered,' |jLLJ loiX] A^-^? Aj] ^TilD ^SoX? ('Dost

etc.; cf. <S
thou expect that apart from God one will answer? etc.). Absque me ' U
Deus respondehit, shifting the accent. There seems a double entendre in
the use of njy answer and correspond
:
*
' God will give an answer
* '
:
*
—
corresponding to the welfare,' etc. 19. uh"^ 'flaccid' fflrom. 21. njanp] ; —
On the G-K. §91/ \r\'vrd\ Sing. {ib. § 9355). 23. moja] Aram.
suff. cf. —
= 'dried,' 'hardened.' The word is ott. Xe7. in OT, and is omitted by
©US'.— onnnN] MSS and ux jn The irregular gender of MT only— .
here in this chapter.

26. ms] Om. of may
be justified on the ground that the numeral
art.
is equivalent to a determinant (G-K. § 126 a;) but xxx. nnsn is much to be ;
preferred. —
27. n'lpin] empty.' The pointing is suggested partly by the
'
contrast to dnVc {^ etc.), partly by the fact that (in MT) pi has not been
used of the ears. We ought undoubtedly to read nip^n (jju..^). 'ui vn']
—
The translation above is not free from difficulty ; it omits a prediction
of unusual plenty preceding the famine, which is, nevertheless, pre-
supposed by what follows. But the ordinary rendering is also weak :
why should the seven thin ears alone be fully interpreted? Besides,
D'^3?' is fem. 28-32. The critical difficulties of the ch. commence in
^s-ai '^^-
this section. Pro. assigns to J (|| E), instancing n^? (cf. \^^ zi^^- ^»
— —
(* This is the announcement I [now] make to Pharaoh '). In

any case 29 looks like a new commencement, and may intro-
duce a variant from J [v.t.). 31, V"!V K7"l goes back to the —
Viii Npl of ^^.
—32. If the dream is one, why was it twice
repeated? Because, says Joseph, the and
crisis is certain
urgent. So he rounds off his finished and masterly explana-

tion of the dreams.
33-36. Joseph's advice to Pharaoh. Here Joseph —
proves himself to be no mere expert in reading dreams, but
a man with a large reserve of practical wisdom and states-
manship. —33-35- There is an apparent discrepancy between
the appointment of a single official (^^*)and that of a com-
mission of ^
overseers ' (^^*) ; and again between the fifth
part (^^^) and the whole (^^*) we note also the transition ;
from sing. (^DH)) to pi. ("iV3p^1, etc.). For attempts at division

of sources, see below. —
34. The taxing of a fifth part of the
crop seems to have been a permanent Egyptian institution
(see on 47^*), whose origin the Hebrews traced to the
administration of Joseph. —
35. under the hand (i.e. the
authority) of Pharaoh\ cf. Ex. iS^^^, 2 Ki. 13^, Is. f.
37-46. Joseph's elevation.— 37, 39 (E) 38 (J).— The |I
thing \\\2X was pleasing to Pharaoh^ etc., is not the interpreta-
27^" 43^ 44^^)> (12^" 43^ 47^* •^^) as characteristic of J ; but they are
3-1^*^ "^51
not decisive. limits J to ^' 30a. 32b;3 (|| 27f. 30b. 31. 32aba E).
Gu. This is on the
whole more satisfying, since hdcji and yi;: N*?! appear to be doublets (Di.) ;
but a positive conclusion will hardly be reached.
33-36. The passage is certainly composite, and can be resolved into
two nearly complete sequences as follows E=^- 3^*'* ^^â (to nynsj)' 36a/3y :
;
j_34a. 35ab^ (from '?pN)- ^â>. Characteristic of E are c'k, on^fD px, nns
n3, against J's an'ps (with pii^s), pxn, "pdn pp and the only necessary ;
change is nas' to n3:i\ The result corresponds pretty closely with Gu.'s
analysis that of Procksch differs widely. ^33. nt] see Baer-Del. p. 78
; — ;
G-K. § 75/. Str., however, holds the true reading to be kt:. 34. ntyy'] —
jua ^'^'•1. To the peculiar idiom, De. compares the Latin fac scribas ;
ntfy may, however, mean 'take action,' as i Ki. 8^^. B'Dm] fflr pi. —
35. iiDsj'i anyn Sdx] Ball prefixes «^:i (as v.^^) some such expedient is ;
necessary to make sense of the last word. For nDB'i, axx^ have nOB" — ;
aSc (Tvvaxdw^ (n3H'?). 36. jn;??] Lv. s^^- ^'t obviously suggested here »
by Dnp£3 in v.^.
37-46. Analysis. —To E we may pretty confidently assign ^''* ^^
(p33
DDni as 83) "0 to J ^-
;
•**• 45. Whether J's parallel to ^ commences with
*^ (Pro.), or is delayed to ^ (Gu.), it is hard to decide. ^^^ reads like a
—— — '
XLI. 29—42 469

tion of the dreams, but the practical sug-gestion with which it
was followed up, thoug-h it was the former which proved that
Joseph was truly inspired. The statement that the policy
commended itself comes from E in J, Pharaoh improves ;
upon it by entrusting the supervision to Joseph himself in-

stead of to the * overseers' he had proposed. — 38. the spirit
of God] here mentioned
Gen. as the source of inward
first in
illumination and intellectual power. The idea that eminent
mental gifts proceed from the indwelling of the divine spirit,
which is implied in Pharaoh's exclamation, was probably
ancient in Israel, although the proofs of it are comparatively
Ex. Nu. 27I8; BTh.
late (cf. 31^, see Stade, § 43. i).—40.
overmy house] The dignity may be compared to that of
'Mayor of the palace" under the Merovingian kings; cf.
I Ki. 4^ 16^, Is. 22^^ etc. —41. over all the land of Egypt]
The most coveted civic office in Egypt was that of the T'ate^
the chief of the whole administration, '*the second after the
king in the court of the palace" (see Erman, LAE^ 87 ff.,
69). The elevation of Syrian slaves to such dignities
is likewise attested for the age of the New Empire [ib.
106, 517 f.). — 42. The form of investiture is specifically

Egyptian. his sig7iet-ring\ used in sealing documents (Est.
3^^ 8^), and given as a token of authority (Est. 3^^ 8^, i Mac.
6^^ etc.). -fine linen] the weaving of which was carried to
extreme perfection in Egypt Erman, 448 ff. the golden ;
collar] There is probably an allusion to the reward of the '
gold,' a decoration (including necklets of gold) often con-

ferred in recognition of eminent service to the crown (Erman,
formula of investiture accompanying the action of ^^^, of which ^^ would

be the explication. ^^^^ would be a natural sequel to ^'^ (nnyi). Hence,
if a division must be attempted, that of Procksch may be followed, viz.,
E= 40. 42b. 43a. 46b;3

; J
=41. 42a. 43b. 44. 45._38. n^jDjn] ist. pi. impf. Qal—
40. p2'' l'3"^yi] (& îrl T£p (TTbixarl <rov VTraKoufferai. The meaning" *
kiss
being- obviously unsuitable, Tu. De. Di. render arrange themselves
*
(from Ar. nasaka) ; others point pb';, * run '

; but no explanation is quite
satisfactory, ys-bi; may, of course, mean '
at thy command (45^^, Ex. '
17^ etc.). — xD3n pi] 'only as regards the throne'; G-K. § 118 h. —
41. IHn] (!S[ + (rriiJ.€pov. —42. B't^] Apparently an Egyptian word (Copt.
Se7is), replaced in post-Exilic Heb. by p3. It is disputed whether it
means cotton alone, or linen alone, or both ; see Di.'s exhaustive note
— — —
1 18 ff.: see the engraving, 208*). —43. the second-best chariot\

Horses and carriages first appear on monuments of the
1 8th dynasty, and must have been introduced *' during the
dark period between the Middle and the New Empire"

(Erman, 490). they cried before hitnZAbrek] A very obscure
word ; for conjectures, v.i. —44. An almost exact parallel (J)
to *^ (E). —45a. Joseph's marriage. —The conferring of a
new name naturally accompanied promotions like that of
Joseph (Erman, 144). the high pHest of un\ was an import-
ant personage in the religion and politics of the New Empire
(see Erman, LAE, 76, S2,, 89, and pass.), and the priestly
college there was reputed the greatest in the country for
learning (Herod, ii. 3 Strabo, xvii. i. 29). Un (Eg. Anu);
is Heliopolis, 7 m. NE of Cairo, an ancient seat of the
on Ex. 25*, and EB, 2800 f.

—
— nntn] xxx nnt. —
43. n^Dip?] G-K. § 85 A.
INip'i] JM.CEr,S Nnp'i. ^linx] The word remains an enigma. The re-
semblance to Heb. ~-\2 has misled no anc. Vn. except Aq. {yovaTlêi.v)
and U {ut genuflecterent). S renders |^ ju \ C ÔJ ;

^^ n3k jn
nd'^d'? ; ^P N^Jtya I'Dni NnoDna 2n nd'?d'?
as subj. of vb. N3« jn ; (&. has Kripv^
(U also has clamante prcecone). The speculations of Egyptologists are

too numerous to mention: see BDB, s.v., or Heyes, 254 ff. The best
is that of Spiegelberg {OLz. vi. 317 ff.), who considers that it is a call
to Attention
' (Eg. 'b r-k !
lit. Thy heart to thee '). Frd. Del.
' ;
' !
{Parad. 225) suggested a connexion with Ass. aharakku (the title of

a high official), which his father declared to be a "neckischer Zufall" !
Radical emendations of the text have been proposed by Ball ('3 nDN[^]
\T\i) and Che. (inN3'3 i3X=r' Mighty one of Chuenaten' [Amenophis iv.]:
OLz. iii. 151 f.); these are wholly unsatisfying, and the latter has not
survived the criticisms of INIuUer {ib. 325 f.): see TBI, /^G'j. pnji] 'thus —
placing.' As continuation of jn'i in *^, the inf. abs. is grammatically
correct (G-K. § ii^^z); and though the idiom is infrequent, there is no
reason to suspect the text. —45. D.4ys î^^^ ®r ôvOofKpavqx (transposing
s and s? [see Nestle, ZATW, xxv. 209 ff.]). The old interpretations
follow two lines: (i) Revealer of secrets' (Jos. Ant. ii. 91; 5^0J,
*
Patr.), connecting with Heb. j32c and (2) 'Saviour of the world' (Copt. ;
p-sot-07n-ph-eneh, De. Ho.) so U Jer. Qucest. Of modern Egyptological

;
theories the one most in favour seems to be that propounded by

Steindorff in Ztsch. f. Aeg. Spr. xxvii. 41 f. : that it represents Eg.
De-pnute-ef-onT}, and means 'The god speaks and he lives.' It is said
{ib. 42) that personal names of this type (though with the proper name
of a deity) are common from the beginning of the 22nd dynasty. See
the discussion in Heyes, op. cit. 258 ff., who prefers the interpretation
* Comp. Heyes, Bib. u. Aeg. 248 ff.

—— — — — — —
XLI. 43-55 471
worship of the sun-god Ra. On the other names in the v., —

V.2.— 45b and 46b are doublets. 46a (P). The chronology is
altogether inconsistent with the assumptions of JE regarding
the relative ages of Joseph and Benjamin (see Ben. 360).
stood before PharaoJi] cf. 47'^ (P).
47-57— Joseph's measures for relief of the famine.

—47, 49 (E) 48 (J). He stores corn during the seven years of
II
plenty. 5O-52 (E ?). Joseph's two sons. Menaiseh] inter-

preted quite grammatically as 'causing to forget.' The
etymology is not to be taken too literally, as if the narrator
meant that Joseph had actually forgotten his father's house
(cf. Ps. 45^^). 52- ^nade me fricitful] The name of the tribe
is generally thought to contain the idea of fruitfulness, from
the fertility of the region in central Palestine which it
occupied. 54-57- The beginning of the famine. 54, 55

contain a slight discrepancy. According to ^^^ the Egyptians
of Lieblein {PSBA, 1898, 202 fF.): defenti [or defenta\-pa-anj} = "celui

—
qui donne la nourriture de la vie." njpN] Explained, with some hesita-
tion, as belonging to (the goddess) Neith (Steindorff, Spiegelberg, al.).
' '
— j;i£3 '»13] {<&. IJerpecpT], a

form of -i£j'J21£3 see on 39^. It
etc.) is fuller ; —
is worthy of remark that, except in the case of Asenath, the suggested
Egyptian analogues of these names do not occur, save sporadically,
earlier than the 22nd dynasty (that of Shishak). 45b. (& om. 46. nyns — —
Dn^D i'?D is an amplification in the style of P (Ex. 6^^' i^- 27. as- j^sy
47-57. Analysis. —
Starting from the presumption that the storing of
food in the cities and the direct appeal of the famishing people to
Pharaoh are not from the same source, the best division seems the
following: E=47.49.64a.65. 56b. J^48.63.54b.56a.57 (comp. Gu. andPro.).
•^^^ are universally assigned to E (on account of D'n'?N) in spite of
the
fact that the children are named by the father. P's authorship is
perhaps excluded by the explicit etymologies, to which there are no real

analogies in that document. The w. in any case interrupt the context
of JE, and may be a supplementary notice inserted by a lace hand at
what seemed the most suitable place. 47. D'2£Dp'?] The si is elsewhere —
peculiar to P (Lv. 2^ 5^2 58^ û. s^^) and Ball assigns ^-^ to that 5
source. But the sense by handfuls is doubtful, and is represented by

*
'
none of the old Vns. except the clumsy paraphrases of TB and ^J so that ;
the text is probably at fault. (& has Spdyfiara ; & and '^^ ]V» oj^ and
pifiN*? (with A\kl*jO and ik-jdi for tfyni).
—48. vn hb'n d'w] Rd. with «xffi
—
ynfn rfn -iitn D'jtrn. 50. nrf] (Sc ra iirTa ^ttj. —51.
'yî] Pi. only here ; both
the form and the irregular vocalisation (G-K. 52 m) are chosen for the
sake of assonance with ^'^'i^- 54. "'''"'] —
qvk 9i<XQ.y \ so ,S ^
a natural mis- —
;
had no lack of bread, and consequently no need to apply to

Joseph, though they were indebted to his forethought. In
^^ they are famishing, and have to buy their food from
Joseph : this view is connected with 47^^^-.
—5^- opened all
that was in them] Read with ^ 'all the granaries,' though
the Hebrew text cannot be certainly restored [v.i.) —57
prepares for the next scene of the drama (ch. 42).
State granaries, for the sustenance of the army, the officials and the
serfs,were a standing feature of Egyptian administration (Erman, LAE,
107 f. ;cf. 433 f.), and were naturally drawn upon for the relief of the
populace in times of scarcity {ib. 126). The 'superintendent of the

granaries was a high officer of state, distinct, as a rule, from the vizier
'
or T' ate (p. 469) but a union of the two dignities was just as easy under
;
exceptional circumstances as the combination of the Premiership with

the Chancellorship of the Exchequer would be with us (see Erman, 89).
We can readily understand that such a wise and comprehensive pro-
vision impressed the imagination of the Israelites, and was attributed by
them to a divine inspiration of which one of their ancestors was the
—
medium (cf. Gu. 384). Besides these general illustrations of the writer's
acquaintance with Egyptian conditions, two special parallels to this
aspect of Joseph's career are cited from the monuments (i) Ameny, a :
nomarch under Usertsen I. (12th dynasty), records on his grave at Beni-

Hasan that when years of famine came he ploughed all the fields of his
district, nourished the subjects of his sovereign and gave them food, so
that there was none hungry among them. (2) Similarly, on a grave of
the 17th dynasty at El-Kab ** When a famine arose, lasting many years,
:
" (see A TLO^^

I distributed corn to the city in each year of the famine
390 Dri. 346 f.). For the sale of grain to foreigners, we have the case
;
of Yanâmu, governor of Yarimutu, in the Amarna letters (see below on

^^yisff.),
—
It is impossible to desire a fuller demonstration of the Egyptian
background of the Joseph-stories than ch. 41 affords. The attempt to
minimise the coincidences, and show that ** in a more original and shorter
form the story of Joseph had a N Arabian and not a Palestinian and
Egyptian background, and consequently that Pharaoh, king of Egypt,' '
should be Pir'u, king of Misrim'" {TBI^ 454-473), tends to discredit

'
rather than confirm the seductive Musri-theory, which is pushed to such

an extravagant length.
understanding. — 56. ona ityN] juu. 13 nna na-N. The context imperatively
demands a noun {(& aLToôXQvas, B |*5fO|). Lagarde {Sym. i. 57) sug-
gested a Heb. equivalent of Talmud. NnUB"N We. some derivative of lac ; ;
De. Ba. and Kit. (combining and &) nan nrsiN.— nntrn] Pt. na^n (Hi.)
ajui.
cf. 428.—'1JI pinî] fflr om.—57. pKH^] Better r\i}i-\nn as (cf. "). (ffir
—
XLI. 56, 57-XLIl 473
Ch. XLI I. Joseph's Brethren come to Egypt to buy

Food{^,])
One thing- is still wanting to the dramatic completeness

of the story of Joseph the recognition of his greatness by
:
his family, or (in E) the fulfilment of his youthful dreams.

This is the theme of the second part of the history (chs. 42-
45), where the writers tax their inventiveness to the utmost
in retarding the denouement of the plot. Two visits to Egypt,
and not fewer than four interviews with Joseph, are needed
to prepare for the final reconciliation and the hearers'
;
attention is all the while kept on the stretch by the surprising

expedients adopted by Joseph to protract the suspense and
excite the compunction of his brethren. —
In ch. 42 we are
told how the ten brothers are brought to Egypt by stress of
famine P~*), are recognised by Joseph, and denounced and
imprisoned as spies i^~^'^) and how after three days' confine-
;
ment they are sent home, leaving Simeon behind them as

a hostage (^^~2^). Arrived in Canaan, they relate their
adventure to Jacob, who bitterly complains of the loss of two
children, and refuses to trust Benjamin to their charge (29-38j^
The incident of the money found in the sacks \^^' 2^'* ^^)
increases the dread with which they contemplate a return to
Egypt.
—
Analysis. Ch. 42 belong-s a potioriio E, and 43. 44 to J (We. Comp.^
58 fF.). A distinct difference of representation appears from a comparison
of 42^^"^' (which, pace Procksch, is an undiluted excerpt from E) with
43^"^ 44^^'^ (J). ** In ch.
42, Joseph secures, by the detention of Simeon,
that the brethren shall return under any circumstances, with Benjamin
or without inch. 43 f., on the contrary, he forbids them to return unless
;
Benjamin is with them" (We.). In J, moreover, the brethren do not

volunteer the information that they have a younger brother, but it is
drawn out of them by searching questions. It is certain (from doublets
and phraseology) that both J and E are represented in 42^"^* ; though
the former is so fragmentary that it is difficult to reconstruct a narrative
consistent with 43^''^- 44^^" . Apparently, the colloquy reproduced in 43"^
4420-23 ^^ must have followed the acknowledgment that they were all
—
one man's sons (^^* ^^ E), a view which seems to fit in with all the
II
literary indications. E's account can easily be traced with the help of
^•^ it includes the charge of espionage (^* ^^* ^*- ^''* ^°), the imprisonment
:
(" ^), the detention of Simeon i}^- '^- ^^- ), the command to bring down
—
Benjamin Q^- '^' ^), and the putting of the money in the sacks (2'* **). In
— — ;
474 VISIT OF THE BRETHREN TO EGYPT (e)
i-14,
the more obvious doublets are i* 2*, s* e\ ?» », ^^^ i3a character- II II U II .
istic phrases of J: IT, ^- 2; mD3 n"?! .Tmi, ^(43^47^^); pD« «ip/(42^^44^*); hn-\ef\
» ; '?3N, 7- 10.
Possibly also pN.i nnynN niNn*?, s^- "'', is J's variant for E's
D'ânD, 9b- "'' etc. (cf.
ô- si-
34) (Gu.). Hence we may assign to J '• »»• *^
^^•''
(except niK'p ann nm'i, which should probably follow'* in E [Di. KS.
Gu.]), »b/3- !"• 1^^- " ; and to E all the rest (so Gu. nearly Procksch, :
however, very plausibly assigns is no trace "• "* to P). —After ^^ there
of J till we come to ^^' 28aba^^
an obvious duplicate of '', containing J's
peculiar word nnnDN. ^'^"^
are from E note the name Jacob, ^^' ^ :
Reuben's leadership, ^7 and the words iN'nn, 3* nnon, ^* (3728 [? 34«o*-]) ;

;
.
na^3, 36. We also obtain some new expressions which may be employed
as criteria of E : nwp, ^ (cf. ') ; d'3D,
3i- 33. 34
(^f.
n. i»)
; oa'na |uyn, 33 (cf. w)
pb, 35 (cf. 25)^ — 38 belongs to J, but its proper place is after 43' (see on the
v.). —A peculiar feature of this and the following chs. is the name px
jyjD, which isGen. characteristic of P (see p. 245). From
elsewhere in
this and some similar phenomena, Giesebrecht and others have inferred
a Priestly redaction of the Joseph pericope but the usage may be due ;
to the constant and unavoidable antithesis between Canaan and Egypt

(see p. 438 above).
1-4. The journey to Egypt. — l, 2. Another effective

change of scene (cf. 39^ 41^), introducing the deliberations
in Jacob's family regarding a supply of food; where the
energy and resourcefulness of the father is set in striking
contrast to the perplexity of the sons. 4. Benjamin has —
taken Joseph's place in his father's affection (44^^*'^-) Jacob's ;
unwillingness to let him out of his sight is a leading motive

both in J and E.
5-17. The arrival in Egypt, and first interview with
Joseph. — On 5, 6a, v.i. — 6b.As suspicious strangers the
brothers are brought before the viceroy. bowed themselves,
etc.] Reminding Joseph of his dreams (v.^). The original
connexion in E is broken by the insertion of v.^ from J.
—
I. nÊ'] of uncertain etymology, is always used of grain as an article
of commerce (Am. 8^ Neh. lo^^).— npy'] (K om.— mnnn] (K pt^dvixetre (? =

nny^, Kit.). Though the Hithpa. occurs elsewhere only in the sense of
'face one another in battle' (2 Ki. 14'- "=2 Ch. 25"- 2^), a change of
text is uncalled for. — 2. nON'i] ffi om. — DCfO] (& "^^x t^VD (as 43^) ; rd. perhaps
^3N DtyD. — 'ten in number,' ace. of condition. 4. npy] (& om.
3. niE'y] —
5a reads like a new beginning, and 5b is superfluous after ^*. Pro.
is probably right in the opinion that "^^ are the introduction to P's lost **•
narrative of the is confirmed by the unnecessary

visit, a view which
explanation of ^*, and by the late word.— 6. tD''?B'] only Ec. 7^" 8^ io»
[Ezk. 1630] and Aram, portions of Ezr. and Dn. (Kue. Ond. i. p. 318).
The resemblance to SdXaris, the name of the first Hyksos king in Jos.
— ——
;
XLII. 1-13 475
7 (J) II
8 (E). That Joseph was not recognised by his brethren is
natural, and creates a situation of whose dramatic possibilities
the narrators take full advantage. The strange mixture of
harshness and magnanimity in Joseph's treatment of his
brothers, the skill with which he plays alternately on their
fears and their hopes, the struggle in his mind between
assumed severity and real affection, form the chief interest of
the narratives up to the time of the final disclosure. It is
unnecessary to suppose that the writers traced in all this the

unfolding of a consistent ethical purpose on Joseph's part,
and it is certainly an exaggeration to speak of it as an
exhibition of seelsorgerische geistliche Weisheit
' ' (De.). On
the other hand, to say that his object was merely to punish
them (Gu.), is clearly inadequate. To the writers, as to the
brethren, the an inscrutable person, whose
official Joseph is
motives defy analysis and it is probably a mistake to try

;
to read a moral meaning into all the devices by which his

penetrating knowledge of the human heart is exemplified.
9. Ye are spies] A charge that travellers in the East often
encounter (see p. 484 below). The eastern frontier of Egypt
was fortified and closely watched (Erman, LAE, 537 ff.), and
a band of ten men seeking to cross it excited suspicion.
the nakedness of the land] Not its poverty, but its open and
defenceless spots. — II
13 (E). sons 0/ one man etc.] Their
(J) ||
j
eagerness to clear their character betrays them into a dis-

closure of their family circumstances, which in J is followed
up by direct interrogation and a warning that they need not
return without their youngest brother (p. 473 above) while ;
in E, Joseph seizes on the reference to Benjamin as a test of

their veracity, and threatens that they shall not leave Egypt
until he is produced (^^'•). one is not] It is a fine instance of
cont. Ap. can hardly be other than accidental. Kin 2] uxSiW Kim.
i. 77, —
9. n)ij;;] pudenda, is only here used of defencelessness. Ar. âurat
lit.
is similarly used of a breach in the frontier of a hostile country (Lane,

*
'
2194 c); cf. Kor. S. 33" "our houses are 'aurat," a nakedness, i.e. —
unoccupied and undefended. (& has to. Ixvt) (reading- perhaps nipy [Ba. ])
2. TO. KpvTTTd.— 10. I'lnyi] cf. G-K. § 163 a jixx^& om. 1. 11. urn] So
: —
Ex. i6''-8, Nu. 32^2, La. 3'*-t (G-K. % 32 d) jjj. umN.-D'j^] lit. 'right ;
men,' is used of persons only in this ch. —

13. ^^^• &'t< '33l dSc om., perhaps
— —
476 VISIT OF THE BRETHREN TO EGYPT (e)
literary tact that Joseph never presses the question as to the

fate of the missing brother. —
14. This is what I said] 'It is
as I have said' (cf. 41^^). Joseph maintains his opinion with
well-feigned official obstinacy (Di.). — 15, 16. By this shall ye
be tested] The pretext covers a real desire to see Benjamin,
which is explicitly avowed in J (44^^^ 43^*^)* ^y l^^ life of
Pharaoh] In Egypt the king was honoured as a god (Diod. i.
go Erman, Handb. 36 f.) and the oath by his life is attested
; ;
by an inscription of the 20th dynasty. The OT analogies cited

by Kn. (i Sa. 17^^, 2 Sa. 11^^) are not in point, since they do
not differ from the same formula addressed to private persons
(i Sa. 20^ 25^^). — 17. The three days' imprisonment is rather
meaningless after v.^^ (see p. 477). Gu. remarks on the
prominence of imprisonment in the Joseph narratives, and
surmises that a good many Hebrews had known the inside
of an Egyptian jail.
18-26. The second interview. — After three days

Joseph appears to relent, and to entertain the idea that they
may after all be telling the truth. He now proposes to
retain only one of them as a hostage, and let the rest carry
corn for their starving households. 18. / fear God] the —
guardian of 'international religious morality' (Gu.), which
is presupposed throughout the patriarchal history; see on
2o3 ^g9. — 21.
Nay^ but we are guilty] The confession is
wrung from them by the distress ('"'"J^) which has overtaken
them, reminding them of Joseph's distress of soul (15^23 n"iV)
when they left him to die, when he pleaded with us] This
touch of pathos is not recorded in ch. 37. 22. Reuben had —
a right to dissociate himself from the confession of guilt,
for he had meant to save Joseph but like many another ;
rig-htly ; cf. the I|

v.^^. — 16. noxn] Impv. expressing- a determination,
G-K. § 110 c. — nynD 'n] G-K. § 93 adS. The distinction between 'n and m
is a Massoretic caprice (Di.). — At the end of the v. juu. inserts a refusal
of the condition in the exact terms of a^^'^^? (J), which undoubtedly
smooths the transition to v.^', but cannot be orig-inal.
18. vm itj-i? n^?1] See G-K. § no/—
19. nnx] without art. {yxx ^^N^) ib.
§ 134 fl?; cf. 43^"*; ct. 42^^ —
20. p-icj,"i] The words are out of place (cf.
^^). Did they stand originally after v.^^?— 21. '?3n] 'Nay, but—,' in-
dicating an affirmation of what one would gladly deny (see on 17'^)- —
— ——
XLII. 14-27 477
man he claims credit for his g-ood intention rather than
for the temporising advice he had actually given (37^^). his
very blood is required] in spite of the fact that the speaker
had kept them from actual bloodshed. —23. an interpreter\
This is the only place in the patriarchal history where
diversity of language appears as a bar to intercourse.
— 24. Joseph is moved to tears by this first proof of
penitence. Simeon is chosen as hostage as the oldest next
to Reuben, of whose attempt to save him Joseph has just
learned for the first time. The effect on the brothers
would be the same as in 43^^ —25. The rest are treated
with great generosity; though whether the restoration of
the money is pure kindness or a trap, we can hardly say.
provision for the way] Hence in E the sacks are not opened
till the journey's end (^).
Yy 15-24 show a disconnectedness which is unusual in the lucid and
orderly Joseph story, and which cannot be explained by discrepancies
between J and E. The first proposal to send one man to fetch —
Benjamin— leads no consequences, but is followed, most unnaturally,
to
by the imprisonment of all the ten. This in like manner serves no
purpose but to give Joseph time to change his mind. And the colloquy
of the brothers (^^^•) could hardly find a less appropriate place than the
moment when hope breaks in on their forebodings. The proper setting
for the imprisonment would seem to be their first encounter with Joseph
(as v.^° ffi) and the confession of guilt would stand in a suitable con-
;
nexion there. It is possible that ^^^' are a variant to ^^^•, belonging to a

somewhat different recension. If Gu. (p. 387) be right in thinking that
the earliest form of the legend knew of only one visit to Egypt, it is
easy to conceive that in the process of amplification several situations were
successively invented, and that two of these have been preserved side
by side by an editor, in spite of their imperfect consistency.
26-38. The return to Canaan.— 27, 28. J's parallel

to ^ (E). —To leave room for the latter, the account is cut
ms] juii ms3.—ir^N^-j ^

^3 iy^y._25. a'trnSi] Continuation of vb. fin. by
inf. (as here) is very unusual (G-K. § 120/). ryi] icyM? cf. ^"B. —
27. ipsJ-j Rd. innncN with (K.— n^^do] characteristic of J (2425- 32 ^^24),
also Ju. 19^^ t. —
(VP*?) strictly 'resting-place for the night' (Ex. ^^*)
p'?o]
or *
night encampment
(Jos. 4^), '
—
perhaps a rude shelter of bushes or
canvas (cf. hji'pd, *hut,' Is. i^ 24^°) rather than a khan or caravanserai.
— îsdd] E says isdd nn:^
(sswjj. gQ here, wrongly. ^
nnriDx] word re- — A
curring 13 times in chs. 43 f. (J), and nowhere else in OT 6r invariably :
/xdpannros. The ^J nno = spread out (Is. 40^2), found in NH. Aram.
'
'
— — —
478 SECOND VISIT TO EGYPT (j)
short with the opening of the first sack. In J, each man

found his money at the * inn ' (43^^). —28. their heart went
out] 'their courage sank.' Partly from the anticipated
accusation of theft more from the super-
(43^^), but still
stitious notion that God was bringing trouble upon them.

nnnjpj^] J's peculiar word for corn-sack (v.t.). The last
*
' —
clause, however, What has God (W^vh^) done to us?] is
apparently taken from E, probably transposed from the end

of ^^ (KS.). —29-34. They recount their experiences to
Jacob. — 30. treated us as spies] Better, as ^ {v.t.)^ 'put us in
ward as spies.' — 35. See on 27f.,
The incident explains
Jacob's foreboding (v.^^) that Simeon and Benjamin are as
good as lost. —36. Me have ye bereaved upon me all . . .
this has come] The point of the complaint is that it is his

children, not their own, that they are throwing away one
after another : to which Reuben's offer to sacrifice his two
sons is the apt rejoinder. —37 is E's variant to 43^ : here
Reuben, there Judah, becomes surety for Benjamin. In E
an immediate return to Egypt is contemplated, that Simeon
may be released hence the discussion about sending
;
Benjamin takes place at once. In J the thought of returning

is put off to the last possible moment (43^), and the difficulty
about Benjamin does not yet arise. 38 therefore has been —

removed from its original context see on 43^- *. bring :
down .to She'ol]

, , See on 37^.
Chs. XLIII. yiLW.—The second Visit to Egypt (J).
The supply of food being exhausted, another family

council is held, at which Jacob's reluctance to part with
Benjamin is at last overcome by Judah becoming surety for
his safe return : the eleven brethren set out with a present
Ar. —
28. ™n] iix(& add Nin unnecessarily. Sn mn] Preg-n. const. G-K. ;
§ ii9gg.—ZQ' "iJn« Ji^'i] <& + iv (pvXaKrj (= iDfsg). 32. D'nN lamt*] xxiiB^ —
transp.— 33. jnyn] Rd. with (St^^^ 'n nDJy, as v.".—34. DD'nN-nN] ffi<SH
pr. "I.—35- On the syntax, cf. G-K. § 111^.-36. hjVd] for jV-i, as Pr
31^^ (G-K. § 91/). On E's preference for these lengthened suflF., see
Di. on Ai^K
;
XLii. 28-xLiii. I, 2 479

for Joseph and double money in their hand (^^*). To their
surprise they are received with every mark of honour as the
guests of the viceroy ; and their fears give place to con-
vivial abandonment at his hospitable table (i^-^^).
But
Joseph has devised one more them trial for : his silver cup
is secretly placed in Benjamin's sack, and on their homeward
journey they are overtaken with the accusation of theft.
Brought back to Joseph's presence, they offer to surrender
their freedom in expiation of some hidden guilt which God
has brought home to them (44^"^^). But when Joseph
proposes to detain Benjamin alone, Judah comes forward
and, in a speech of noble and touching eloquence, pleads
that he may be allowed to redeem his pledge by bearing
the punishment for his youngest brother (^'^~^^). "^
The second journeybrings to light the disposition of the brethren

**
to one another and marking an advance on the first,

to their father, thus
which only brought them to the point of self-accusation" (Di.). That
is true of the narrative as it stands but since the first journey is taken
;
almost entirely from E and the second from J, the difference indicated
is probably due to the different conceptions represented by the two
writers, rather than to a conscious development of the plot.
—
That the chs. are not the continuation of 42 (E) appears
Source.
(a) from the more reasonable attitude attributed to Joseph, (b) from the
ignoring of Simeon's confinement, and (c) the consequent postponement
of the second journey to the last moment, and (d) the divergent account of
the first meeting with Joseph (p. 473). Positive points of contact with
J are (a) the discovery of the money at the first halting-place (43^^), (b)
Judah as spokesman and leader (43^^- ^^' 44"' '^^^'), (c) the name Israel
^' ^^), and the expressions 20. 22 ^î. 25
(43^- '?2n, 432- ^- : 5^,^^,^ (of Joseph, .
without qualification), 433- 5- 6f. 11. nt. ^^26 îdj nhi n'nn, 438 ; nDnonn, 4310
.
;
ir and Tim, 4311- 1'- 20. 22 nnnON, 4312- is. 2iff. ^îf. s. m. pi^^, 4321 ; nibdc,
. .
432^ I"iD*< 'Tip> 44^'«

;
The only clear traces of E's parallel narrative are the
allusions to Simeon in 43^*- ^\ Pro. makes ^-^ (" ^^ba) i3. i4. isa^b. 16*^. 23b ^
continuous sequence from E ; but the evidence is conflicting (note tff'nn,
" ; m'l, ^•'') : see, however, on ^K
I-14. The journey resolved on. — 2. Jacob speaks in

evident ignorance of the stipulation regarding Benjamin
hence 42^^ (J) stands out of its proper place. The motive
of the transposition is obvious, viz., to account for the
seeming rejection of Reuben's sponsorship in 42^'^.
The original order in J can be recovered by the help of 44^^-. After

V.2 there must have been an announcement, in terms similar to 44^^, of
— — — :
the necessity for taking Benjamin with them, to which Jacob replies
with the resolute refusal of 43^ (cf. 44^'). Then follows (^^•) the more
emphatic declaration of Judah, and his explanation of the circumstances
out of which the inexorable demand had arisen (see We. CompJ^ 59 f.).
3-5. Judah's ultimatum. On the difference of representa-

tion from E, see p. —
473 above. 6. The reproachful question
is intelHg-ible only on the understanding that Jacob has just
heard for the first time that he must part with Benjamin.
7. according to the tenor, etc.] In accordance with the gover-
nor's leading questions. —8-10.
Judah becomes responsible
for Benjamin's safety (as in E Reuben, 42^"^^). 9. I shall he a —
sinner, etc.] For the idea, cf. i Ki. i^^ guilt is measured :
not by the moral intention, but by the external consequences,

of an action. — II-14. Jacob yields to the inevitable; but
with characteristic shrewdness suggests measures that may-
somewhat ease the situation. — II. the produce of the land] its
rarer products, as a token of homage. On nn^T, v.i. — On ^"IV,
nsb:, tDp, see 37^^. honey] may here mean grape-syrup, the
dibs of modern Syria (see Robinson, BR, ii. 81, iii. 381);
but there seems no reason to depart from the usual OT
sense of the word, viz., the honey of the wild-bee (see
Kennedy's careful art. in EB, 2104 ff.). pistachio-nuts {v.i.)
are highly esteemed as a delicacy in Egypt and Syria,

although the tree is said to be rarely found in Palestine
(according to Rosen, ZDMG^ xii. 502, not at all). — 12.
3. followed by nom. sent., G-K. § 163 c.

'nVa] —
Instead of oariN, ffi has
6 veuireposKara^y irpbs fie\. 5* "^'^"'2] — ^
+ Tbv ad. tj/hQp /xeO' rj/nutv. 10. '3 —
nny] *in that case,' as 31*^; see G-K. § 159 e^. —
11. nnpi] dir. Xey. ffi
KapTToL, 'B optimis fructibus, W Nynxa njE'D^, 5 P»3 (j OlîiQ-^. The

meaning is obscure. The derivation from sj "iDi, '
praise ' [in song]
(UQT^J, Tu. al.) is perhaps too poetic to be natural, though it yields a
good sense; that from sJ *idj, 'prune,' is hardly suitable (see Di.).
•n 7
DHMuUer (in Ges. Hdivh.^^ p. 983) connects with Aram. ;iiD5, *
admire '
—
'admirable products,' practically the same idea as Tu. (On Ar.
damara, dimdr [agreeing phonetically with Aram, and Heb.], v. Lane,
—
977 ^0 c^s^n] OTT. Xe7. Almost certainly nuts of Pistacia vera, belonging
to the terebinth family (hence (&. T€p4/ji.[p]ivdov, so H), for which the Syr.
name is {A^n ô (Aram, njou, Ar. buhn, Ass. butnu) ; see BDB, s.v.^
12. njB'D fjDD] cf. f|D3 njB-D, v.^"* ; and see G-K. § 131 ^, j-.— ag'iDn] See Ba-Del.
— — — —
XLIII. 3-23 481
double money , and the money etc.'\ can hardly mean

, . ^
double money besides that which had been returned unless ;
(Procksch) the first clause be a variant from E, we must

take 1 as = ' namely.' — 14. ''El Shaddai does not occur else-
where E 17I), and may be redactional.
in J or (see on On
the composition of the v., v.i. —as I am bereaved^ elc] An
utterance of subdued resignation : cf. 42^^, 2 Ki. 7*, Est. 4^*.
15-25. In Joseph's house. 15. They first present —
themselves before Joseph at his official bureau, and are
afterwards conducted by the steward to his private residence.
The house of a wealthy Egyptian of the i8th dynasty will
be found described Erman, LAE, 153, 177 ff. 16. Joseph's
in —
desire to on Benjamin being now gratified,
* set his eyes *
he rewards his brothers by a display of kindness which

must have seemed excessive. slay and make ready] In
Egypt, accg. to Her. ii. 37, 77, Diod. i. 70, flesh was eaten
daily by priests and kings, although the former had to
abstain from certain kinds of animal food (Kn-Di.). 18. —
To the simple-minded peasants all this looks like an
elaborate military stratagem to overwhelm them by main
force and reduce them to slavery. 19-22. To forestall the —
suspicion of theft, they offer to return the money found in
their sacks. In its full weight] On the weighing of money,
see 23^^. — 23.
your money came to me] Therefore what
you found has nothing to do with it. The steward has
entered into Joseph's purpose, and encourages them to
p. 79 (* pathachatum uti expresse ait Masora '), G-K. §§ 7266, 93//.

14. inx] jumCBr nnnn. The phrasing is pecuUar, and suggests that RJ^
may have added to J the words pD'JrnKi nnx, at the same time inserting
d"? (which €r om.), to bring about the desired allusion to Simeon.
'n'?^^']Pausal G-K. § 29 u. :
16.DijiK] juxffiUlDON.— pD':3] (!5 + iDN-p VON (v.^^).— nil!?] The Only case
of impve. in o with final gutt. (G-K. § 65 b). 18. int'i] m-i»i. z&n] ux — ®
(K 3\f'TOn (v.i2).— '?'?Jnn^] &ir. Xey.
^ô read hiim^ (see Ba.). dSt rov
<rvKO(pavTri<TaL fj/xcis, 'S ut devolvat in nos calumniam. The text is not to
—
be questioned. 20. '3] Always followed by 'JiN (44^^, Ex. 4^<'- ^^^ Nu. 12^1,
613- 1»
Jos. 78, Ju. 138, I Sa. i2«, I Ki. 3"-26t). It is commonly derived
from ^y ny3, *ask,' or (BDB) Ar. hayya^ 'entreat' might it not rather :
be regarded as a shortening of ':?k (2 Ki. 5^^^ jb^ 242^) from a^/'^^n, *be
willing ' ?— 23. D3'3n] ux<Gi D3'naN.
31
— — — —— :
believe that it was a supernatural occurrence, but of

auspicious omen, and not, as they had imagined, a calamity.
—The notice of Simeon's release is here inserted as the
most convenient place, from E. 24. Cf. 24^^. —
25. they —
had heard, etc.] In conversation with the steward (cf. v.^^).
26-34. At Joseph's table. —
27, 28. Joseph's courteous
inquiries as to their welfare and that of their father are a
studied prelude to 29-31, his profound emotion
at the sight of Benjamin, his (full) brother, the son of his
mother. The disparity in age must have been great ('33)
one wonders whether the narrative does not presuppose

that Benjamin had been born since Joseph had been lost.
30, 31. For the second time (422*) Joseph's affection finds
and again he restrains himself, that he may
relief in tears,
carry out his plan. —

The interlude reveals, as Gu. remarks,
a power of psychological observation which is absent from
—
the oldest legends. 32-34. The feast brings two more
surprises the arrangement of the brothers in the order of
:
seniority (see on 42^*) and the special favour shown to

;
—
Benjamin. 32 affords an interesting glimpse of Egyptian
manners. Joseph's isolation at table was perhaps due to
his having been admitted a member of the priestly caste
(41*5), which kept itself apart from the laity (Kn-Di.). The
Egyptian exclusiveness in intercourse with foreigners, which
would have been perfectly intelligible to the later Jews,
evidently struck the ancient Israelites as peculiar (Gu.).
Cf. Her. ii. 41. — 34. The custom of honouring a guest by
24. jn'l— tf'Nn] (& om. —25. iSsn'] (& more easily '?3«' (of Joseph).
26. iS'a'i] On Dag-h. or Mappiq in N, see G-K. § i^d. — nsnx] <& pr.
D'DK.— 27. Di'?t5'n] noun? or See G-K. § 141 c^.— 28. After Athnach
adj. ?
juxfflr ins. n'rhi6 Nirtn b^nh ina noN'i,— a parallel to the benediction on Benj.
(^): —
clumsy in expression and hardly original. 29. omDN] ffi + N'an'?,
—
an interesting and perhaps correct addition. I3n;] for vi:n; (as Is. 30^^) ;
—
seeG-K. §67^. 30. cpa'i nno'i] 'hastily sought,' though an inter-
—
mediate clause between the complementary vbs. is very unusual. *?«]
xsxhv. — 32. Dni'o'?] Better onâ'? so Vns. Ba.
: (& adds ttSs Troi/xiiy
irpo^druiP, in mistaken accommodation to 46^^. —
34. NtJ"i] ffi^ inb"1. —
nn'] = shares' or 'times,' 47^*, 2 Ki. 11', 2 Sa. 19^, Neh. ii^ Dn.
*
1^0 1. — n^K''!] hardly 'got drunk': •\D& of convivial drinking, Hag. i*,
Ca. 5^.
—
XLIII. 24-XLIV. 5 483
portions from the table is illustrated by 2 Sa. 11^; cf. Horn.

//. vii. 321 f., Od. iv. 65 f., xiv. 437.-^1;^ times].
It is hardly accidental that the number five occurs so often in
reference to matters Egyptian (413* 45^2 ^f-^, Is. 19^8)^ Whether
there be an allusion to the five planets recognised by the Egyptians
(Kn.), or to their ten days' week (Di.), it is impossible to say. Jeremias
(ATLO'-^f 385) connects it with the five intercalary days by which the
Egyptian calendar adjusted the difference between the conventionalised
lunar year (12 months of 30 days) and the solar year (365 days), these —
belonging to Benjamin as the representative of the 12th month! The
explanation is too ingenious, and overlooks the occurrence of the
numeral where Benjamin is not concerned.
XLIV. 1-17. The cup in Benjamin's sack. — i, 2. This

final test of the brethren's disposition is evidently arranged
between Joseph and the steward on the evening of the ban-
quet, to be carried out at daybreak (v.^). — lb. each mans
money etc.] Though this seems a useless repetition of 42^^,
^
with no consequences in the sequel, the clause ought scarcely

to be omitted (with Gu.) before 2. the silver cup] Joseph's ^^. —
ordinary drinking-vessel, but at the same time an implement
of divination most precious possession.
(v.^) : therefore his
—3-5. The trap just when they have
is skilfully laid :
emerged from the city, and think all danger is left behind,
exulting in the fresh morning air, and still unwearied by
travel, they are arrested by the steward's challenge, and
finally plunged in despair. 4. Why have ye good?] — . . .
^
adds, Why have ye stolen my silver cup ? The addition
' '
seems necessary in view of the following ^T, ^. and^ more- —

over^ he divines with (or in) it] See on v.^^.
On the widely prevalent species of divination referred to {kvKiko-

fiaPTela, XeKauo/xavrela), cf. August. De civit. Dei, vii. 35 Strabo, XVI. ii. ;
39 ; lamblichus, De myst. iii. 14. Various methods seem to have been
I. ^ ins. 'li>}(rr](f) as subj. nn^ p'^î'] Ba. plausibly, nncfb i'?3V. — 2.

Used of the golden cups of the candlestick (Ex. 25^^''^'37^'^^-) else-
H'za] ;
where only Jer. 35*^, along with the ordinary word for cup (ois), of the * '
'bowls' of wine set before the Rechabites. — 3, 4. On the synt. of these

vv. see G-K. §§ 142 e, 156/; Dav. §§ 141, 41, i?. 3. The addition in (&
runs : iVa ri iKXixpar^ /xov to kSuSv rb dpyvpovv ;. — 5. c'nj] The derivation of
this vb.from i^m, serpent,' first suggested by Boch. {Hieroz. \. 3), is sup-
*
ported by (amongst others) No. {ZVP, \. 413) and Baudissin {Stud. i.

287) on the other hand, see We. Skizzen, iii. 147 and Rob. Sm. JPh,
; ;
— :
employed e.g.^ among-st the Babylonians oil was poured into a vessel
;
of water, and from its movements omens were deduced according to a

set of fixed rules of interpretation see Hunger, Becherwahrsagung bet
:
den Bahyloniern nach zwei Keilschriften aus der Hammurabi- zeit

{Leipziger Se?nit. Stud., 1903, i. 1-80). An interesting modern parallel —
is quoted by Dri. (358^), and Hunger (4), from the Travels of Norden
(c. 1750), where a Nubian sheikh says / have consulted m,y cup, and I :
'
find that you are Franks in disguise, who have come to spy out the land.'
6-9. The brethren appeal to their honesty in the matter

of the money returned in their sacks, and propose the
severest punishment —death to the thief, slavery for the rest
—should the missing* article be found with them. — 10. The
servant holds them to their pledge, but offers easier terms
the thief alone shall be Joseph's slave. — II-I3. To the dis-
may of the brethren the cup is found in Benjamin's sack.
12. beginning . . . youngest] A calculated strain on the
brethren's suspense, and (on the part of the narrator) an
enhancement of the reader's interest cf. i Sa. i6^^-. 13. : —
Their submissiveness shows that no suspicion of a trick
crossed their minds their sense of an adverse fate was
;
quickened by the still unsolved mystery of the money in the

sacks, to which they had so proudly appealed in proof of
their innocence. — I4-I7* The brethren before Joseph. — 14.
he was still had not gone out to his place of business
there]
(see 43^^- ^'^j, but was waiting for them. 15. that a man in my —
position (one of the wise men of Egypt) can divine.
It is difficult to say how much

implied in this claim of superhuman
is
knowledge on Joseph's part. No

it links itself on the one hand to
doubt
the feeling in the brethren's mind that a divine power was working
against them, and on the other to the proofs they had had of the
governor's marvellous insight. But whether Joseph is conceived as
really practising divination, or only as wishing his brothers to think so,
does not appear. Not improbably, as Gu. surmises, the motive comes
from an older story, in which the prototype of Joseph actually achieved
his ends by means of occult knowledge.
16. God has found out^ etc.] The exclamation does not
xiv. 115. — 8. 1D3^] txi. fiD3n. — 9. inx] ffi + T6 K6vZv. — r\u\'\ xjx nov, equally
—
good. 12. n'?3 'jnn] Infs. abs. (n'?5
. . . ^:\r() would be more idiom- . . .
atic than the pf. (so Ball). —

16. We. {Comp.^ 60) would omit mi.T and
read nON'"i but the text is safeguarded by v.^^, and the change is un-
;
called for. Judah speaks here in the name of all, in ^^^- for himself.
— — — —
XLIV. 6-28 485
necessarily imply consciousness of particular guilt (see on

43®), and is certainly not meant as a confession of the wrong
done to Joseph at the same time we may be sure that that
:
is the crime to which their secret thoughts gravitate {^2^^^-).
— 17. Judah's proposal that all should remain as slaves is
rejected by Joseph, who on separating Benjamin's fate

insists
from that of the rest. Did he purpose to retain him by his
side, while sustaining the rest of the family in theirhomes ?
18-34. Judah's plea for Benjamin. The speech, which — >
is the finest specimen of dignified and persuasive eloquence

in the OT, is perhaps modelled on the style of forensic
oratory to which the Hebrews were accustomed in public
assemblies at the city gates (ct. the stilted oration of Ter-_^
tullus in Ac. 24). Sincerity and depth of feeling are not more
remarkable than the skilful selection and disposition of the
points most likely to appeal to the governor: (i) a recital of
the interview in which Joseph had insisted on Benjamin being
brought down (19-23)
; (2) a pathetic description of the father's
reluctance to part with him, overcome only by the harsh
necessity of hunger (2^-29)
; (3) a suggestion of the death-
stroke which their return without Benjamin would inflict on
their aged parent (^^- ^^); and, lastly, (4) the speaker's personal
request to be allowed to redeem his honour by taking Ben-
jamin's punishment on himself (^^~^^). The Massoretes —
commence a new Parashah with v.^^, rightly perceiving that
Judah's speech is the turning-point in the relations between
Joseph and his brethren. 19-23. On the divergent re-
presentations of J and E, see on p. 473 above. 20. lo his —
inother\ See p. 449. 28. The words of Jacob enable Judah
to draw a veil over the brothers' share in the tragedy of
Joseph. and 1 have not seen him till now\ Comp. the
rugged pathos of Lowell's
** Whose comin' home there's them that wan't
No, not life-long- — leave off awaitin'."
The simple words, with their burden of suppressed emotion,
18. 'S3 T03] G-K. § 161 C.—20. idn"?] (& rnN"?.— 24. '3n] «xfflÛ5 irax
(so (Sc& in 27, and (&&¥ in ^%—28. iDNi] ffi Kal eHrraTe.
— .
486 JOSEPH REVEALS HIMSELF (e, j)
have a meaning for the governor of which the speaker is all
unconscious. — 29. in trouble to She'6l\ Cf. 42^^ 37^^ 44^^'

30. his soul (not 'life') is bound up^ etc.] a figure for in-
alienable affection; as i Sa. i8^
Ch. XhV.—Joseph reveals himself to his Brethren (E, J).
The crisis so slowly matured and so skilfully led up to is
at last reached, and in a scene of inimitable power and tender-

ness Joseph makes himself known to his brethren (^~^). In
a message to his father he discloses his plans for the future,
inviting the whole family to settle in Egypt while the famine
lasted (®~^^). The invitation is confirmed by the king (I6-20J
and the brethren depart laden with rich gifts and provision
for the journey i^^''^^). Jacob, after a momentary incredulity,
is cheered by the prospect of seeing Joseph before his death
/25-28\
The sources, E and J, are here so intimately blended that a complete

analysis is impossible. The main fact is the preponderance of E, which
appears both from language (dm'?k, ^- 7- s. 9. ^py,^ 25. .y^~^ n^^, ^[31^]; ms, -^
[42^5] 13, 23 perhaps also piD, ^3 and DDTyn-riN ijyt:, " [ct. J's n»n-'?y DDy'i,
;
; ;
44"]), and representation ct. v.^ with 43^'-, "'^^ with 46^^-47^ (J), where
:
Joseph's kindred are apparently brought under Pharaoh's notice for the
first time. Indubitable traces of J are found in ^^' ^ (the selling of Joseph),
^* (Goshen, —
see the notes), "^ (^Nnc) these are supported by the ex- ;
pressions, pSNnrr, ^* (as 43^') niiyo, ** nmn, ^3 nNii-Sy Ss3, ^^ Thus far in
; ; ;
the main We. and More subtle and less reliable criteria are ap-
Di.
plied by Gu. (402 f., 406), and (with very different results) by Pro. (52 f.).
It is probable that ^ (E) is (J), and (agt. Pro.) (E) But it is very
^ ^^"»
||
(J). ||
doubtful if the dismissal of the attendants

be inconsistent with the (^)
overhearing of the weeping (^), or if the latter be necessarily connected

with the Pharaoh's invitation (^^*^-). Some minor questions, such as —
the * waggons of "• ^ (cf. 46^), and the authorship of vv.^^"^^, must
'
'^^'
be reserved for the notes.
1-8. The disclosure. — I, 2, Joseph's self-restraint gives

way before Judah's irresistible appeal. — It is pressing matters
too far to say that the dismissal of the attendants is a device
31. -w^ri] Mxi&'ESi +«]?x(as V.30).— 32. '3x] ux V3k, 5 ir3N.—34. 'n»«]
I. Viinn] Nu. i2''t (E?). — 2. onifO] (& Dn2ôn-'?D. The pointing onsD
without art. (Gu.) is no improvement. — yotfi] ffi^ y^^n, as in v.^*; so
— —
XLIV. 29-XLV. 9 487
to keep his relation to the strangers a secret from Pharaoh

(see on the sources above). — 3* ^^ my father yet alive ?\ The
question is slightly less natural in the context of J (see 43^^'-
442*^) than in E, where the absence of any mention of Jacob
might leave room for uncertainty
since the first visit (42^^)
in Joseph's mind. But since he does not wait for an answer,
the doubt can hardly be real. were troubled before him]
Comp. 50^^"^^ (also E).
— 4. J's parallel to v.^, — probably the
immediate continuation of v.^ (cf. 44^^). — 5"^* With singular
generosity Joseph reassures them by pointing out the provi-
dential purpose which had overruled their crime for good ;
cf. 50^*^. The profoundly

religious conviction which recog-
nises the hand of God, not merely in miraculous interventions,
but in the working out of divine ends through human agency
and what we call secondary causes, is characteristic of the
Joseph-narrative amongst the legends of Genesis : see Gu.
404 (cf. ch. 24). — 7* ^'"'"!^?'] 'remnant,' perhaps in the sense
of 'descendants '
(2 Sa. 14^, Jer. 44^). But the use of "9 r?
(strictly '
escaped remnant,' cf. 32^) is difficult, seeing the
whole family was saved (z;.z.). 8. a father to Pharaoh\ Prob- —
ably an honorific title of the chief minister (cf. i Mac. 1 1'^,
Add. Est. 3I3 812) see^ further, inf .
9-15. Joseph's message to his father. That both J —

and E recorded the invitation may be regarded as certain,
apart from nice questions of literary analysis Eerdmans' :
suggestion that, in J, Jacob conceived the project of going

down to Egypt **auf eigene Faust" (Komp. 65, 70) being
Ho. Gu. The cl., however, is best regarded as a doublet of the preced-
ing-, in v/hich case MT is preferable. —
3. ^Dr 2] ^
+ 6 d5eX06s y/ttDj', tv
oLTreSoade els Myvirrov (as v.^). vj£3D] ffi om. —
4a. (&^ om. entirely. 5. —
D3'ri-a nn'-'?Ni] (cf. 31^5) jg g-g variant to nsyn-Sx (6^ 34' J). n;TO] In Ju. 6* —
17^° the word signifies 'means of subsistence' in 2 Ch. 14''^ perhaps ;
*preservation of life and so here if the pointing be right. Ba. plausibly

'
;
emends n-n?, preserver of life (i Sa. 2^). 6. Ti-pi ty'in] Ex. 34^' (J ?). 7.
* '
— —
no''?!)'? nvnn] The want of an obj. after 'nn is harsh (cf. 47^"^ so^"). The
omission of the (joiffi^S' Ols. Ba, al.) improves the grammar, but the sense
*?
remains unsatisfying (v.s.). 8. 3N —

piN] That the words are used in
. . .
their Heb. sense ('father' 'lord') is not to be questioned in spite of

. . . ;
the fact that Brugsch has compared two Egyptian titles, identical in form
but altogether different in meaning- (see Dri. DB, ii. 774 ; Str. p. 157 f.).
— — ;'
488 JOSEPH REVEALS HIMSELF (e, j)
contrary to every natural view of the situation. We may

therefore be prepared to find traces of the dual narrative in
these vv. — 10. On the land of Goshen^ see the footnote. he
near to me] The clause is not inconsistent with the preceding
for, as compared with Canaan, Goshen was certainly near '
to where Joseph dwelt. Nevertheless it is best regarded as

a variant from E, continued in ^^*. It is only in J that the
Israelites are represented as dwelling in Goshen. 12-15.
The close of Joseph's speech, followed by his affectionate
embrace, and the free converse of the brethren. — 13 and 14
^ and ^^
(J) are respectively parallel to (E).
16-20. Pharaoh's invitation. — This, as already ex-
plained, is peculiar to E. It is just possible (though hardly
probable) that in this source Joseph's invitation (^"•^^) extended
only to his father, while the idea of transplanting the whole
family emanated from the king. — l6a. Cf. v.^. — 18. the best
10. ]Vi] i& T^<refi 'Apa^tas (as 46**). The name is peculiar to J (46^^-
29.34 4^]. 4. 6. 27 ^qS^
gx. 8'8 926!) ? has land of Ramses (47", cf. Ex. i"
;
* '
12^'', Nu. 33^) while E uses no geographical desig^nation. That P and

;
J mean the same locality is intrinsically probable (though Naville con-

siders that the land of Ramses was a larger area than Goshen), and is
confirmed by recent excavations. The city of Pithom (see on 46^) has
been identified by Naville with the modern Tell el-Afaskhuta, 12 m. W
of Ismailia, in Wadi Tumilat, a long and narrow valley leading ** straight
from the heart of the Delta to a break in the chain of the Bitter Lakes,"
and therefore marking a weak spot in the natural defences of Egypt
(Erman, LAE, 525 f.). In the same region, though not quite so far E,
excavations at the village of Sa/p el-Henneh have established its identity
with Pa-soft (also called on local inscrs. Kes), which is stated to have
been the capital of the 20th Nome of Lower Egypt. A rare name of
this nome is Kesem and ; it is at least a plausible conjecture that this is
the same as the biblical fg'iiso the situation of Goshen is

(Fô-e/i) ; and if
fixed as a part of W. Tumilat surrounding Saft el-Henneh. A confirma-

tion of this may be found in the'Apa^ta of fflr, for this in Graeco-Roman
times (Ptol. iv. 5, 53) was the name of one of the 23 nomes of the Delta,
whose capital â/coOcrcra (cf Strabo, XVII. i. 26) has long been conjectured
to be the ancient Kes, preceded by the art. pa. See Naville, Land of —
Goshen, etc. (Fifth Memoir of EEF, Store City of Pithom,
1887), 15 ff., 20 ;
etc. (^1903), 4ff. Spiegelberg, Aufenth. etc. 52 Miiller in EB, 1758 ff.;
; ;
and Griffith in BD, ii. 232 f.— II. ^2^2] cf. 5021(E).— trmn-js] 'lest thou
come to want (lit. be dispossessed ') ; cf. Ju. 14^', Pr. 20^^ 23^^ 30^
'
*
20^- "•
17. jyo] Hit. \ey. (Aram.); ct. Doy, 44^^ (J).— rya] Ex. 22*, Nu.
"(E), Ps. 78*n.-
— ;
XLV. 10-23 489
of the land {v.i.^ the fat of the land] The expressions

. . .
are not altogether inapplicable to Goshen (W. Tumilat),

which was rendered by a canal, and is still spoken of
fertile
as the best pasture-land in Egypt (Robinson, BR, i. 53 f.).

But since E never mentions a separate location in Goshen,
there is no need to force that sense upon them the meaning ;
is general the best of everything that Egypt can afford [v.i.).

;
— 19. The opening words [v.i.) throw some doubt on the

originality of the v. and there certainly seems no more
;
reason for ascribing it to J (Gu.) than to E. The baggage- —

"Waggon (i^^^J!) is said to have been introduced into Egypt from
Canaan, with its Semitic name (Eg. 'agolt) : Erman, LAE,
491.* —20. Let not your eye pity] The phrase is Deuteronomic,
and seems a very strong one for concern about household
implements. According to J (^^^- ^^^ 46^- ^2) they brought
*all they possessed,' which, if they were half-nomads, would
be possible without waggons.
21-28. The brethren return to Canaan. —22. Presents
of expensive clothes are a common mark of courtesy in the
East: cf. Ju. 1412^-19, 2 Ki. 55.22!.^ changes of raiment] such
as were substituted for ordinary clothing on festal occasions
(see on 27^^). — Benjamin receives five such suits : see on
43^*. —23. of the best{y^roA\xQ,^) of Egypt\ A munificent return
ir6.vT(jiv TcSv dyadu)v. — For *

the best par/,' P uses na'p (47^- "). — 19. nnni
''''7'3^"] The pass, is awkward in itself, and has no syntactic connexion
with the following- w]} n«T (hence & inserts y^X-Kj]] r^})' Di. Kit.
emend nm n.^s nnNi ; Ba. nNTHN ni2{ nnxi (after ^ Si> 5^ ^freiXai ravra ; cf. U)
Gu. 'n'lv nnxi the first is best. But it is still difficult to understand the
:
extreme emphasis laid on this point and a suspicion remains that either ;
the whole v. (Di.), or the introduction, is due to a scribe who wished to

make it clear that the waggons were not sent without Pharaoh's express
authority see on v.^^.
:
21. '?NnE'' —
icfyi] The statement is premature, and furnishes an addi-
tional indication that this part of the narrative has been worked over.
The repeated jnn also suggests a doublet or interpolation. In ^^'î, Di.
leaves to E only im*? m:^ Dn*? jn'i m'?jy on'? |nn KS. only the second of '••
these clauses, the rest being redactional. "im^ mi'] as 42^* (E). 23. — ;
—
riNM?] (so pointed only here) in like manner' (Ju. 8^). pio] (2 Ch. ii-^f)
:
*
—
—
from an Aram. ^J jii = 'feed.' Of the three nouns, na, an"?, and pro, ffir
* Cf Heyes, Bib. «. Aeg: i. 251.

— — a
490 THE SETTLEMENT IN EGYPT (j, E, p)
for Jacob's modest complimentary present (43^^). com and

bread and sustenance for the journey] cf. v.^^. 24. Do not —
get excited by the way] sc.j with mutual recriminations, —
caution suggested by 42^^. —25—28. Jacob's reception of the
tidings. —26. his heart numb] unable to take
became cold, or
in good to be true. 27.

the startling intelligence, as too —
But gradually, as they rehearse the words of Joseph^ and
show him the waggons as a pledge of his power, his spirit
revived] he recovered his wonted energy of thought and
action. —28. From J. It is enough] The father's heart is
î)
indifferent to Joseph's grandeur (^- and princely gift^ ;
the fact that his son lives is sufficient consolation for all he
has endured (cf. 46^^). The psychology of old age could not
be more sympathetically or convincingly treated.
XL VI. —
i-XLVII. 12. The Settlement offacob and his
Family in Egypt (J, E, P).
Jacob, encouraged by a night vision at Beersheba, takes

his departure for Egypt (^"'^) : (here is inserted a list of the
persons who were supposed to accompany him, *'~^'^).
He
sends Judah to announce his arrival to Joseph, who proceeds
to Goshen and tenderly welcomes his father (28-30j^ Having
instructed his brethren in the part he wishes them to play
pi-34^^ Joseph presents five of them before Pharaoh, and
obtains permission for them to settle for a time in Goshen
(47^"^). Jacob's interview with Pharaoh closes the account
of the migration C^"^^).
Sources. —The narrative of JE is several times interrupted by excerpts

from P, whose peculiar style and viewpoint can be recog-nised in 46^"^
^^^6.
6a. 7-11
^byj- ggg j-jjg notes below, p. 439 ff.). Disregarding these w., —
expresses only on'?. & has |;.!iQ>j, ' wine,' for on"?, but perhaps through
dittog. of IfLO-K*, 'asses.' —24. nain "?«] (& fXT} dpylêadejlB Ne irascaminty
& tO x\l |J, ^^ psjnn N^ (* quarrel '). But the Heb. verb denotes simply
agitation, by whatever emotion produced. In Arab, and Syr. — 26. 313]
the sj means to be or grow and NH, fig. 'grow

'cold,' in Syr., also,
inactive,' 'fail,' 'vanish'; in OT the prevailing idea seems to be that
of numbness (BDB) cf, Hab. i^ (of t6rdh\ Ps. 38^—28. 3i] As an ex-
;
clamation =' enough !'; cf. Ex. 9^8, Nu. 16'-'^, Dt. i' 2* etc.
— — ;
XLV. 24-XLVI. 3 491
we have a continuous J narrative from 46^8-478 note ^Nnc", 29. so Qoshen, :

.
38. 29. 84. 1. 4. 6b

tj^g leadership of Judah, ^8
.
the ignoring of Pharaoh's ;
invitation (45^'*^' E) ; nxi!£ Sy Sejj, ^9 ; cysrt, ^ ; uniyjD, ^13y3, ^. —46^*° is

in the main from E, as appears from the night vision, the form of
address, ^ Jacob's implied hesitation, ^ (ct. 45-^) the name/acoi, 2- sa .
; ;
i^x, 3._ia (Sxn:;-) and possibly ^^

D\nVx, 2 ; belong to 47^^ J.— is doubtful,—
probably E (SdVd, as 45^^). — See We. Compr 60 f.; Di. Ho. Gu. Pro. 54 f.
(who assigns 47' to E instead of P and 47^2 ^q J).
1-7. Jacob bids farewell to Canaan.— i. came to Beer-

shehd\ There is in E no clear indication of where Jacob lived
from Laban (see on 35^). If at Beersheba, the
after his return
above clause is redactional, written on the assumption that
he started from Hebron (37^* J). The point would be deter-
mined if ^^ were the original continuation of ^% for it is
absurd to suppose that the waggons were first put to use
in the middle of the journey (We.). But even apart from
that, the natural view undoubtedly is that Jacob would
not start until his misgivings were removed in answer to
his and that consequently his dwelling-place at
sacrifice,
this That he sacrificed at the last

time was Beersheba.
patriarchal sanctuary on the way is a much less plausible
explanation. the God of Isaac] Isaac . . . is apparently
regarded as the founder of the sanctuary, as in ch. 26 (j'^)
an Elohistic parallel to that tradition may have existed

though in 21^^ (E with J^) its consecration is attributed to
Abraham. —2-4. The last of the patriarchal theophanies.
Comp. 12^^-, where the theophany sanctions the occupation
of Canaan, as this sanctions the leaving of it (Di.) and 26^, ;
where, under circumstances similar to Jacob's, Isaac is for-

bidden to go down to Egypt. — 3. the God of thy father] As
elsewhere in Genesis, ?^ denotes the local nu?nen^ who here
distinguishes himself from other divine beings, —a trace of
the primitive polytheistic representation (cf. 31^^35^ 33^^ 21^^
i6^2). Fear not^ etc.] The purpose of the revelation is to
ynr iNn] (& here and v.*^ rh <ppiap toO SpKov (see p. 326). 2. Snik'''?]
I. —
The word has crept in from v.^ through an inadvertence of the redactor
or a later scribe " God said to Israel, Jacob Jacob
:
*
is a sentence !
!
'
which no original writer would have penned" (We.). On the form of —

the v., see on 22^^. —
3. 'iniD] From .Tin, the rare form of inf. const, of '"s
——
492 LIST OF Jacob's descendants (p)
remove the misgiving natural to an old man called to leave

his hearth and his altar. The thought is confined to E
(ct. 4S^^ l)-—/^^ ' • • natiofi] The words, if genuine, should
follow the immediate grounds of comfort in v.^. They are
probably to be regarded (with KS. Gu. al.) as an expansion
of the same character as 131'^^- 22^^^- 28'* etc. 4. / will go —
down with thee] So in 31^^ the Êl of Bethel is with Jacob in
Mesopotamia. brifig thee up] The reference must be to the
Exodus (Ex. 3^ 6^ etc.), not to Jacob's burial in Canaan
(47^^^' 50^*^-). lay his hand upon thine eyes] i.e., close them
after death ; for classical parallels, cf. Hom. //. xi. 453, Od.
xi. 426, xxiv. 296; Eurip. Phoen. 1451 Hec. 430; Virg. Aen.
f.,
ix. 487, etc. (Kn-Di.). — 6, 7- P's summary of the migration

{vJ.).
8-27. A list of Jacob's immediate descendants.— The
passage professes to give the names of those who went down
with Jacob to Egypt, but is in reality a list of the leading
clans of the Israelite tribes, closely corresponding to Nu. 26^^-.
These traditionally numbered seventy (cf. the 70 elders,
Ex. 24^-^, Nu. 11^^). Closely connected with this was an-
other tradition, that the number of the Israelites at the
settlement in Egypt was 70 (Dt. lo^^). In the more careful
statement of Ex. i^ (P), this means all the descendants of
Jacob at the time: i.e., it includes Joseph (and presumably
his sons, though they were in Egypt already) and, of course,
excludes Jacob himself. In the mind of the writer of the
present passage these two traditional schemes appear to
have got mixed up and confused. As it stands, it is neither an
accurate enumeration of Jacob's descendants (for the number
70 includes Jacob and excludes Er and Onan), nor a list of
those who accompanied him to Egypt (for it embraces Joseph
and his sons : see on '^^^•). When cleared of certain obvious
^
accretions (v331 2\>T ^^^'^
; I
^^*^
5 I'^ni ^^^ ; k^'t^"l D^:^•C' ^^ and the
whole of except the last
^'^
word D^>'3i^*), we find as its nucleus
verbs, peculiar to E see G-K. § 69

: m' ; Ho. Hex. 190. — 4. nSy dj] See on
273^31". (& els Ti\os.—S- 2pi" ^] fflr om.— ny-.s] <&'lua-q<p.—6, 7. Cf. 12"
31^8 36^ (P).Further marks of P : can, t^m, iriN i;;nj (177- 9^-
35^-), and the
redundant phraseology.
;
XLVI. 4-10 493

a list of Jacob's sons and grandsons, originally compiled
without reference to the migration to Egypt, on the basis
of some such census-list as Nu. 26^*-
That the section belongs in general to the Priestly strata of the Pent,
is seen from its incompatibility with the narrative (and particularly the
chronology) of JE from its correspondence with Nu. 26^^-, Ex. 6^*"^- and
; ;
from literary indications (moB' nht<\ ^ [cf. 25^^ 36^"] mx p£3, ^^ tfSJ, i^- is. 23.
; ;
26-27.-,^, ,j5jf,^ 26)^ ^g regards its relation to the main document of P,

three views are possible (i) That the list was originally drawn up by
:
P, and afterwards accommodated to the tradition of JE by a later editor

(No. Di. al.). This implies the perfectly tenable assumption that P did
not accept the tradition as to the death of Er and Onan, or that of
Benjamin's extreme youth at the time of the migration but also the ;
less probable view that he numbered the sons of Joseph amongst those
who went down to Egypt. (2) That the interpolations are due to P,
'
'
who thus turned an older list of Jacob's children into an enumeration of

those who accompanied him to Egypt (Dri.). The only serious objec-
tion to this theory is that it makes P (in opposition to Ex. i^) reckon
Jacob as one of the 70. It is nevertheless the most acceptable solution.
(3) That the whole section was inserted by a late editor of the school of
P (We. Kue. Gu. al.). Even on this hypothesis, the original Ust will
—
have had nothing to do with the migration to Egypt. The discrepancy
in the computation lies in the first section (^^^). The 33 of v.^° was in
the originallist the true number of the sons of Leah. The interpolator,
whoever he was, had to exclude Er and Onan to make up for this he
;
inserts Dinah (^^*), and reckons Jacob amongst the sons of Leah An- !
other sign of artificial manipulation of the figures appears in the pro-

portions between the number of children assigned to each wife Leah :
32, Zilpah 16, Rachel 14, Bilhah 7 (in all 69); each concubine-wife
receiving just half as many children as her mistress. The text of ffi
presents some important variations {v.i.\
8a. The heading is identical with Ex. i^*, except the

words nai npy% which are obviously interpolated (see intro-
—
ductory note). 8b-l5. The sons of Leah: v\z. four sons of
Reuben (v.^), six of Simeon (i^), three of Levi {^^),Jive sons
and two grandsons of Judah {^^),/our sons of Issachar {^^),
—
and three of Zebulun (i^). 15. thirty-three is thus the correct
number of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Jacob by
Leah. To preserve this number intact with the omission of
Er and Onan, the interpolator was obliged to add Dinah,
and to include Jacob himself (see below).
9. Exactly as Ex. 6^^ Nu. 26''-. —
lian is also a Midianite tribe (25*)
the Reubenites occupied Midianite territory (Jos. 13^^). —

pisn] and 'did]
also Judahite clans (see v.^^ and Jos. 7^). —
10. (= Ex. 6^5). Nu. 26^2ff.
— — — —— —
494 LIST OF Jacob's descendants (p)
omits inN and reads h^Di for Vnid', and mt for 'iri}i. nni'] The name of —
Ephron's father in 23^ the son of the Canaanitess] representing a clan
of notoriously impure stock. ii. (= Ex. 6^^). —
12. As Nu. 26^^-. The — —
note on the death of Er and Onan is an interpolation (see above).
pnsn] (see on v.^) was a town in Judah (Jos. 15^').
— '?'iDn] xxx ^Ninn ; ffi-
'le/xouT^X. — (= Nu.
13. — judge of the same name, son
26^^-). \h-\r\] Cf. the
of HNiD, of the tribe of Issachar
(Ju, 10^). -TjD] ux& hnis, as i Ch. 7^,
Ju. 10^. —3v] MX and (&

i^la<Tov^[<p]) read niB" as Nu. 26 Wi. connects :
with Yasub-ilu under the ist Babylonian dynasty {GI, ii. 68^). 14. (Nu. —
262P). jiSn a Zebulunite judge in Ju. 12^^ 15. ma r\y\ dni and vm1^ —
are glosses.
16-18. The sons of Zilpah (Leah's handmaid) : seven

sons of Gad {^^), four sons, one daughter, and two grandsons
of Asher Q-'^) : sixteen in all (^^).
16. (As Nu. 26^5*-, with textual differences). ]vsi)i\ ux(& ps2£, as Nu.
26^^ — p:iN] ixi. pynsN, (& Qaaoâv, stands for '3TN in Nu. 26^^. — 17. me'', a
variant of the following does not appear in
'!»"(?), 26*^^-. two Nu. —The
grandsons inn and 'jn'dSd have been connected with the Jâhiri and the
(chief) Milkili of the Amarna Tablets (Jast. JBL, xi. 1 20).
19-22. The sons of Rachel : two of Joseph (2^) and ten of

(î),
Benjamin in q\\ fourteen.
20. n^fi] ffl^ + uioL But the rel. cl. Jn — ncN was probably added by the
glossator, in which case the D'^n of fflr is superfluous. — adds, in partial
fflr
agreement with Nu. 26^^^-, five names as sons and grandsons of

—
Manasseh and Ephraim. 21. In ffir only the first three names are sons
of Benjamin, the next six being sons, and the last a grandson, of Bela.
Still another grouping is found in Nu. 26^^-^".— nD3] (© X6j3up) cf. Sheba :
the Bichrite in 2 Sa. 20^ in Nu. 26 i3n is an Ephraimite.

: NiJ] omitted —
in Nu. 26, is the clan of Ehud (Ju. 3^^) and Shimei (2 Sa. 16''). For the —
two names k'nii 'hn, Nu. 26^^- has DTnx, for D'^d, DSine' or dejic, and for
D'sn, DE^n (see Gray, HPN, 35). —
[oy: and mx are sons of ySa in Nu. 26^.
—22. nV'] MSS ;ux(»& n-i^\
23-25. The sons of Bilhah (Rachel's maid) : one of Dan

(23, in spite of ^:n), Sind four of Naphtali (2^) : seven in all.
23. -Jn] So Nu. 26^^ where for U'mn we find ornB'. — 24. (as Nu. 26*8**).
—uhv] ux diSe' (as I Ch. 'j^^), (& ZuXXtj/*.
26, 27. The final summations.

The original computation (70 =33+16+14 + 7) included Er and Onan,
but excluded Dinah and Jacob. The secondary figure 66 (= 32 + 16+ 11
+ 7) excludes Er and Onan, and Joseph and his two sons, but includes
Dinah. To make up the original 70 it was necessary to reckon not only
the family of Joseph (3), but Jacob himself. (&, with its 5 additional
— — —
XLVI. 11-31 495
descendants of Joseph (see on v.'^), makes the total 75 (so Ac. 7"), but
inadvertently substitutes ivvâ, instead of ewTa, for the U'w of '", MT
overlooking- the fact that both Jacob and Joseph have to be reckoned
in the 75.-26. m' 'n^'] 35", Ex. i».—27. n^'j juu. vh\
28-30. The meeting of Jacob and Joseph.— 28. to

direct before him to Goshen\ The Heb. here g-ives no toler-
able sense. The meaning cannot be that Judah was to guide
the travellers to Goshen, for he is sent straight to Joseph ;
and for the idea that Joseph was to give the needful instruc-
tions for their reception in Goshen (Di.), the expression would
be extremely harsh. The only natural purpose of Judah's
mission was to bring Joseph to meet his father; and the
least difficult course is to read (with Vns. v.i.)'. to appear
before him in Goshen^ which had already been indicated by
Joseph as the goal of the journey (45^^). 29. went tip] —
Goshen lying somewhat higher than the Nile-valley. 30. —
The v. prepares us for the death-bed scenes (4729^-), which
in JE must have taken place soon after, not as in P at an
interval of 17 years.
XLVI. 31-XLVII. 12.—Joseph obtains Pharaoh's
permission for his brethren to settle in Goshen.
31-34 (J). He prepares his brethren for an introduction to
Pharaoh, in the expectation that by laying stress on their
herdsmen's calling they may have the desirable frontier dis-
28. nmn"?] xxxdlSt? & (We. nnn^), which is confirmed by n-i.»i in

riMt-m)
the next v. There is no need to take the Vjsh in a temporal sense.

The construction is pregnant, but otherwise unobjectionable ; the tone
of superiority assumed by Jacob towards Joseph is hardly a serious
difficulty. Ba. thinks that the orvvaPTTJaaL of (& implies a reading- niNii'rn^
(*to meet') but the Niph. of mp would rather mean 'to come upon un-
;
expectedly' (Dt. 22^, 2 Sa. 18^). ]&i—nwi] fflr Kad' 'Bpdbuv irbXiv els yrjv
'Pa/xeao-^. Heroopolis has been shown by the excavations of Naville
(Store City ofPithoin, etc.S sfiF. cf. Gillett inJSBL, Dec. 1886, p. 69 ff.)
;
to be Pithom (Ex. i^^), now Tell el-Maskhuta (see p. 488 above). The
Bohairic Vn. substitutes Pethom for the "RpiJjwv of <&. (& thus makes
the meeting take place at the frontier town in the W. Tumilat towards
the desert (so v.^). The reading is noteworthy textually as containing
P's name for Goshen. in^'i] iixlBSi «3'i (better).— 29. tj; inNii-Sy] ffi
K\avdfx($ trlovL (van ifKelovL). —

The iiy is strange ; but cf. Ps. 84** (Ru. 1^^
is not in point).— 30. T3£3] Sb + 'J3.
31. V3N nu"*?*?!] ffi om., perhaps rightly.

49^ THE SETTLEMENT IN EGYPT (j, p)
trict of Goshen assigned to them. It is evident that in J the

migration was resolved on without the invitation, or perhaps
—
the knowledge, of the king. 32. for they were cattle-breeders]
a more comprehensive category than shepherds. Gu. thinks
that the representation made
Pharaoh cannot have beento
strictly true, or Joseph would not have made such a point
of it * and we must at least suppose that he advises them
;
to emphasise that side of their life which was most likely to

gain the end in view. Unfortunately, while he bids them
say they are cattle-breeders, they actually describe them-
selves as shepherds (47^), and yet Pharaoh would make them
cattle-overseers {47^^). Some confusion of the two terms
may be suspected, but as the text stands, nothing can be
made of the distinction. — 34. that ye may dwells etc.] What
motive in the mind of the king is appealed to is not quite
clear. If the last clause —for every shepherd, etc. — be
genuine, it was the Egyptian abhorrence of the class to
which they belonged. But such a feeling would be more
likely to exclude them from Egypt altogether than to procure
their admission to the best pasture-land in the country,
where Pharaoh's herds were kept (47^^). Moreover, while
there is evidence that swine-herds (Her. ii. 47) and cow-
herds (Erman, LAE, 439 f.) were looked down on by the
Egyptians, the statement that shepherds were held in
special abhorrence has not been confirmed ; and the clause
(34fc^)
is probably an interpolation suggested by 43^^. See,
further, on 473ff-.— XLVII. I-5a, 6b Pharaoh grants the
(J).
request. — I. and behold . . . Goshen] It is evident that in
this narrativeJoseph relies on the fait accompli to procure
a favourable response from Pharaoh. The idea that Pharaoh
decided such matters in person may be naive (Gu.) it is ;
certainly a curious restriction of the absolute authority else-

where assigned to Joseph. — 2. he had taken five, etc.] On the
32. vn— 'd] reg-arded as a gloss by Di. KS. Ho, Gu. al. —34. \z'i\ ffi
rc<re/*'Apa/3fp.— ny-i] wx (US^T*^) 'yi.— 2. njjpD] = *from the totality of,' as
* So Eerdmans {Vorgeschichte Israels, 42 Exp., Aug-. 1908, p. 124 f.),

;
who draws the conclusion that, as the Israelites here represent them-
selves as nomads, they cannot have really been so !
XLvi. 32-xLvii. 6 497
significance of the number, see on 43^*. — 3, 4. The antici-
pated question answered in accordance with Joseph's
(46^^) is
instructions, though the phraseology differs by the substitu-
tion of |NV ^n for '""Ji^p ^t^'^N*. — It is possible that the repeated
nONÎ due to the omission between ^ and * of a further
is
question by Pharaoh as to the reasons for their coming to

Egypt (so Ba. Gu.). The whole leads up to a straight-
forward request for a temporary domicile in Goshen and ;
the point may be simply that as herdsmen they had brought

their means of subsistence with them, and needed nothing
but grazing land, which must have been obtainable in spite
of the famine. There is no hint of any aversion to the
strangers or their manner of life. 6b. Let them dwells etc.] —
is the continuation of ^* in ffi (^.1.)^ whose arrangement of
these vv. is obviously more original than that of MT. As —

an additional favour, Pharaoh offers to take any capable
members of the family into his service as cattle superintend-
ents('^pi?P """il^')' —^^
frequently mentioned
office in the monu-
ments as one of high dignity (Erman, LAE, 94 f., 108, 143).
The breeding of cattle was carried to great perfection in
ancient Egypt (ib. 436 ff.).
The admission of pastoral tribes within the frontier of Egypt is an

incident twice represented in Eg-, inscrs. of the period here supposed.
Under Hor-em-heb of the i8th dynasty, some barbarians have a definite
assigned to them by a high officer and reference has already
district ;
been made (p. 437) to the Edomite nomads who in the time of Merenptah
were allowed to pass the fortifications and feed their flocks in "the
—
great pasture-land of Pharaoh" probably this very Wadi Tumllat
where Goshen was (see ATLO^^ 393 Dri. 372). ;
5, 6a, 7-1 1. Jacob before Pharaoh (P).— 5. The text of

^ (v.t.) supplies the following opening to P's account (con-
tinuing 46^)AndJacob and his sons came to Egypt to Joseph ;
:
and Pharaoh king oj Egypt heard it (°*), and Pharaoh said to

Joseph^ etc. — It is plain that ^^ continues this conversation
and not that between Pharaoh and the five brethren. 6a. —
Here Pharaoh himself selects the best [part] oJ the land for
1 Ki. 12^^ Ezk. 33^ (otherwise Gn. 19*). — np*?] (plup.) juu + iey. — ^3. vnx]
Auffi5>QP 1DV -nx. — nyi] ux 'yn (as 46'^).—5, 6. The overlapping of J and P
at this point can be proved and corrected from fflr. After ^ (omitting
32
— —
498 Joseph's agrarian policy
the Hebrew family to dwell in (see v.^^). — 7. Joseph intro-

duces his father to Pharaoh, —an impressive and dignified
scene. blessed], i.e. 'saluted' on entering (cf. i Sa. 13^*^,
2 Ki. 4^^, 2 Sa. 13^^ i9*^)j but recorded, no doubt, with a

sense that **the less is blessed of the better" (Heb. 7^).
9. few and The expression shows that P must have

evil]
recorded Jacob's long exile with Laban and his protracted

sorrow for the loss of Joseph it is still more interesting as ;
showing that that writer could conceive a good man's life as

spent in adversity and affliction. II. Ike land of Ramses] —
The name only here and of 46^^ (see on 45^^), so called ^
from the city built by Ramses 11. (Ex. i^^) and named
after him 'the house of Ramses,' in the E of the Delta
(Erman, LAE, 48). The situation is still uncertain Naville ;
(Goshen, 20) was inclined to identify it with Saft el-Henneh

(see p. 488) ; but Petrie now claims to have discovered its
site at Tel er-Retabeh, in the middle of W. Tumilat, 8 m. W

of Pithom [Hjy'ksos and Israelite Cities, 1906, p. 28 ff.) — 12.
Probably from E ||
27a
(j).
XLVI 1 . 1 2,-2^ .—Joseph^ s Agra-nan Policy (J ?).
Joseph is here represented as taking advantage of the

great famine to revolutionize the system of land-tenure in
TDN*?) <& reads ^^ ; then ^\dov bk eis AiyvirTov vpbs 'Icjcrrj^ 'la/ccbjS Kal ol viol
aiiTov' zeal i^Kovatv âpaw âaiXevs AiyvirTOV ( = VJ3l apy nonsD 1N31
'"|DV-'?N
iSd nyis yDB"i) then ^^ (repeated) ^^- ^*' '^•. It

D'-ii'D ; will hardly be disputed
that the text of ffi is here the original, and that P's narrative com-
mences with the additional sentences quoted above. The editor of MT
felt the doublet to be too glaring- he therefore omitted these two sen-
;
tences and then by transposition worked the two accounts into a single
;
scene. A further
phase is represented by Hex. Syr., where ^^ and ^* are
omitted. We have here an instructive example of the complex process
by which the sources were gradually worked into a smooth narrative, and
one which deserves the attention of those writers who ridicule the minute
and intricate operations which the critical theory finds it necessary to
attribute to the redactors. —6b.
See G-K. § 120 e. The t^'n of
-v:^ nyT dni]
ixi. is certainly not preferable (Ba.). — ii.

v.^ Ex. 22**, i Sa. 15^- ^^t- 3t3'D]
The identification of ymn 'd with the land of Ramses probably rests '
'
on a misunderstanding of E's 'nh 31a (see on 45^^), and a combination of

it with J's jK'a. —
12. ion] apparently including here the women cf. 50^^. :
— —
XLVII. 7-17 499

Egypt for the benefit of the crown. In one year the famish-
ing people have exhausted their money and parted with their
live-stock, in exchange for bread in the next they forfeit ;
their lands and their personal freedom. Thus by a bold

stroke of statesmanship private property in land (except in
the case of the priests) is abolished throughout Egypt, and
the entire population reduced to the position of serfs, paying
a land-tax of 20 per cent, per annum to the king.
Source. —The section ^'"^j dealing- as it does with matters purely

Egyptian and without interest for the national history of Israel, occupies
an anomalous position among the Joseph-narratives, and cannot be con-
fidently assigned to either of the main documents (We. Comp."^ 61). Lin-
g-uistic indications are on the whole in favour of J n3D, ^^ mD3 k*?! .Tnj, ^' : ;
(42^ 438) nn% 24 (433'i)

; ^p:^ njpoi ]\<^n njpo, '^ (26") 'J'ya \n toio, "^ (see Gu.
; ;
and Di.). But there are also traces of E's diction pm, 20 nnn, ^zr^y ^s'- :
.
(29^1 3o\ —
differing from ii'-**'') (Di. Ho.); besides some peculiar ex-
pressions very unusual in Pent. : r\rh, ^^
; CSN, ^^f. .
qo^j, (Qal), ^^
; Nrr, 23
(Di.). It is possible that Ho. (251 f.) and Pro.

are right in think- (54 f.)
ing the passage composite but no satisfactory analysis can be effected.

;
That it is out of place in its present connexion is generally admitted,

but that it finds a more suitable position between chs. 41 and 42 (Di.
Gu. al.) is not at all obvious. It is not improbable that a piece of so
peculiar a character is a later addition to the original cycle of Joseph-
legends, and belongs neither to J nor E. V.^' appears to be from P, —

with glosses (see the notes).
13, 14. Joseph takes up all the money in Egypt and

Canaan. Canaan is bracketed with Egypt as far as v.^^,
after which the situation is purely Egyptian. It is natural
to suppose that the references to Canaan are interpolated

(Ho. Gu.); but considering the close political relations of
the two countries, it would be rash to assume this too
easily. — I5~I7' ^^^ live-stock is next exhausted. horses]
See on — 18-22. The people
12^^. surrender their lands and
persons for bread. This is the decisive stroke of Joseph's
statecraft, making a return to the old conditions impossible ;
13. a^m] ux i6T\\ The nn"? is Aram. Eir. \ey.=rM<h, 'languish.'

V It
is one of several rare expressions which occur in this section. 14. onne'] —
(!& + d'7:'?d"i (v.^2)_ —
i^.
Qr^] The vb. only here (and v. ^^) in Pent. else- :
—
where poetic (Is. 16'* 2920, Ps. 77^t). ^03] »^ lo^'^, €t 13203 (so v.^").
16. ddS] juuifflrlJ + on'?. —
17. Snj] Only here in the sense of 'sustain' [with
food] elsewhere, if the ,J be the same, it means lead (to watering--
;
' '
— —
500 JOSEPHS AGRARIAN POLICY
and it is noteworthy that (as if to relieve Joseph of the

odium) the proposal is represented as coming- from the
people themselves. —
18. that year the second year\ Not . . .
the first and second years of the famine (for we can hardly
suppose that the money and cattle were exhausted in a
single year), but simply two successive years. 19. buy us —
and our land\ The only basis of personal independence in a
state like ancient Egypt being the possession of land, the
peasants know that in parting with their land they sacrifice
their freedom as well. give seed, etc.] A temporary provision
(see V.24) for the time of famine, or perhaps for the first
sowing after it was over any case most

(Ho.). It is in
natural to suppose that these drastic changes took place
towards the end of the 7 years. 21. aiid the people he re-—
duced to hond7nen\ Read so with Vns., v.i. (Kn. Di. De. al.).
The MT he brought them over to the cities appears to
:
'
'
mean that he brought the rural population to the cities

where the corn-magazines were (41^^-*^); but the emphasis
on the obj. leads us to expect a parallelism to the appropria-
tion of the land in vP (Di.). A universal redistribution of
the inhabitants (^°, Tu. al.) could not be expressed by the
words, and would, moreover, be a senseless measure. —22.
The priests' property was exempted, because they had a
statutory provision of food, and did not need to sell their
lands. So the writer explains a privilege which existed in

hisday (see p. 501 below). Comp. Erman, LAEy 129,
where Ramses iii. is said to have given 185,000 sacks of
corn annually to the temples. —23-26. Institution of the
land-tax. —23. Here is seed for you] The gift is not to be re-
peated ; hence the incident naturally belongs to the end of
the famine. — 24. a fifth part] According to Oriental ideas,
place, goal, etc.) : see p. 414. —

18. D« 'd] may be rendered equally well
(with ®r) 'that, if (protasis to nxB'J kS), or with W^ 'but' [sondern] (De.
Ho.). — 19. "ijnmN D3 i3n:N dj] (& avoids the bold zeugma, and substitutes
Koi 7] yij if>r]fji,ojdy, as at the end of the v. —
rrnji] ffi 'iva o-irelpufiey (yntjl ?).
21. Dny"?— Tnyn] MT is supported by &E°J, while xxxtSc read onayS— T3yn,
—
as does the loose paraphrase of U. 23. nh] Only Ezk. 16*^ and Aram.
—
Dn. 2^. 24. nNi3n3] It seems necessary here to take 'n as a noun of
action :at the bringings in (C'-' De. Di.), though elsewhere it always
'
'
— — —
XLVII. 18-27 501
and considering the fertility of Egypt, the impost is not

excessive; a much higher percentage being frequently
exacted under Eastern governments (cf. i Mac. lo^^, and
the authorities cited by Di. p. 444). On the severities of
taxation under the New Empire, see LAE^ 122. 25. The —
people gratefully accept the terms. — 26. The arrangement
is fixed by administrative decree, and survives to the time
of the writer. 27. (P, v.i.) is the conclusion of the settle-
ment of Israel in Egypt (v.^^).
The system of land-tenure reflected in vv. ^'-2« is supposed by Erman

to have actually arisen through the extermination of the old landed
aristocracy which followed the expulsion of the Hyksos and the founding-
of the NewEmpire {LAE, 102 f ). The same writer thus sums up what
is knownor surmised of social conditions under the New Empire "The :
landed property was partly in the hands of the state, partly in those of
the priesthood it was tilled by peasant-serfs ; there seem to have been
;
no private estates belonging to the nobility, at any rate not under the
19th dynasty. The lower
orders consisted mostly of serfs and foreign
slaves ; the higher, of officials in the service of the state and of the
temples" {ib. 129). The peculiar privileges of the priests (and soldiers)
are attested by Diod. i. 73 f.; Herod, ii. 168 (but cf, ii. 141): the latter
says that every priest and warrior possessed 12 dpovpai of land tax-free.
Of the amount of the land-tax (one fifth) there appears to be no inde-
—
pendent confirmation. The interest of the biblical account is aetiologi-
cal. The Hebrews were impressed by the vast difference between the
land-tenure of Egypt and that under which they themselves lived and ;
sought an explanation of the '

abnormal agrarian conditions (Erman) '
prevailing in the Nile-valley. Whether the explanation here given rests

on any Egyptian tradition, or is due to the national imagination of
Israel, working on material supplied by the story of Joseph, remains as
yet uncertain (see Gu. 410 f.).
The close connexion between Egypt and Palestine in the matter of
food-supply is illustrated by the Amarna letters, where a powerful
minister named Yanliamu is frequently mentioned as holding a position
somewhat corresponding to that of Joseph. Yanhamu, whose name
suggests Semitic extraction, was governor of an unknown province
means 'increase 'or 'produce.' To omit 3 (with ffi) does not yield a
natural construction. ddSdn"?] Ba. happily emends u^h "^^kS ddsd*? ^2^<h^]
—
Better omitted with ®. 26. fonh] ffi E'sn^. VD'n is not found, and the
expression is very awkward. A good sense might be obtained by
transposing ^y^£^'? i^sn^ (with (&^' *') but whether that is the original text
;
is very doubtful. 27. The v. is usually divided between J and P but ;
^Kna" is no sure sign of J, since it denotes the nation. The only charac-
teristic of J is ]tffi p«3, which may be very well excised as a gloss the :
rest may then quite suitably be assigned to P (cf. thnj, nani ms).
—
502 JACOB ON HIS DEATH-BED (j, E, p)
called Yarimuta, which some have tried (but on the slenderest g-rounds)
to identify with the biblical Goshen (Wi. Forschungen, iii. 215 Je. ;
ATLOy 391^). The references imply that he had control of the state-
granaries ; and complaints are made of the difficulty of procuring'
supplies from the high-handed official ; in particular, it is alleged that
the people have had to part with their sons and their daughters, and
woodwork
the very of their houses, in return for corn (see Knudtzon,
El-Amarna Tafeln^ p. 407). That this historic figure is the original
of some features in the portrait of Joseph (a combination first suggested
by Marquart, and approved by Wi. Che. Je. al.)is conceivable enough ;
though definite points of contact are very restricted, and the historical
background of Yanhamu's activity has completely faded from the bio-
graphy of Joseph.
An equally striking, and equally unconvincing, parallel is pointed
out by Eerdmans ( Vorgeschichte Israels, 68) from a much later period
— —
the end of the 19th dynasty, when, according to the Papyrus Harris,
Arisu ('I-tr-sw), a Syrian, "in years of scarcity" which followed "the
abundant years of the past," " made the whole land tributary to himself
alone" (see Petrie, Hist iii. 134). The resemblance vanishes on closer
inspection. Arisu is simply a Syrian chief, who, in a time of anarchy,
gets the upper hand in Egypt by the help of his companions, oppresses
the people, and engages in a crusade against the native religion. To
say that " the circumstances of this time correspond in all respects
[ganz und gar] to the statements of the Joseph-stories," is a manifest
exaggeration.
XLVII. 28— XLVIII. 22.—Jacol) s last Interview with

Joseph (J, E, P).
The death-bed scenes of Jacob are described in great

detail by all three narrators, because of the importance of
the dying- utterances of the last ancestor of all Israel.
There are four main incidents : (i) Jacob's charge to Joseph
(28-3ij
with regard to his burial •
(2) the blessing of Joseph
and his two sons (48) ; (3) Jacob's oracles on the future
of all the tribes (49^"^^) ; and (4) his instructions regard-
ing his burial in Machpelah (29-33j^ T\\& first two may be
conveniently treated together.
Sources. —
The triple thread of narrative is shown by the three begin-
nings 4728 (p)^ 4^29 (j)^ and 48^ (E). To P belong 47^8 483-6 note the
: :
chronology and syntax of 47^®, the connexion of 483** with 35^- ^^* ^^ j
ntf ?«, '; nmni msjn, ^ ; d'Dj; Vnp, ^ d'?ij; ntnN, ^ I'Sirr, ^
; Equally decisive are ; —
4729-31 ^s- 3i
the indications of J in ; V^nB", 'iji it k3 'a',29 (24^);
; '^y, .nNSD D{<,29 ;
nDNi non, 29 (24« 32I1) >n3N-Dy 'nnDt:', 3o._The analysis of 48*- 2- 8-22 jg more
.
doubtful : formerly the passage was treated as a unity and assigned to

—
XLVII. 28-XLVIII. 2 503

E (Hupf. We. Comp^6\ f., Dri. al.), but the evidences of double recension
,
are too numerous to be overlooked. (See Budde, ZATW^ iii. 1^6 ff.)
Thus, while npy, 2*, and D'hSn, »• "• i«- 20f., and "iDNn, 22^ poi^t ^q g^ \vr\v\
2b.8. lof. i3f. 21^
and n'ysn, ", point to J. A clue to the analysis is supplied
by (a) the double presentation of Manasseh and Ephraim, ^°*' ^^ {^y\) H
;
and (6) the obvious intrusion of ^^- '^ between ^* and '^. ^3. i4. 17-19 hang
together and are from J ^^ links on to ^2^ and '^f- presuppose ^<'*. Taking
;
note of the finer criteria, the analysis works out somewhat as follows :
£_ 1. 2. 8. 9. 10b. 11. 12. 16. 16. 20a|3.yb. 21. 22 .

J
= 2b (?). 10a. 13. 14. 17-19. 20aa U^ ^•\r\r\\ •—
deleting Vnik" in 8.11.21 ^s a redactional
2b{T)-
explication. So in general
Di. KS. Ho. Gu. also Pro., who, however, places 21-22 before
; in E's
"^
narrative. —
The source of
is difficult to determine usually it has been ;
assigned to P or R, but by Gu. and Pro. to E (see the notes).
28-31. Joseph promises to bury Jacob in Canaan.—

28 (P). Jacob's age at the time of his death ; cf. 47^. 29-31
(J). Comp. the parallel in P, 492^-32. —29. On the form of
oath, see on 24^. —30. lie with my fathers] i.e., in She'61
(see on 258); cf. Dt. 31^^ i Ki. 2^^ etc.— their burying- m
place] But in 50^ (also J) Jacob speaks of **my grave which
I have digged for myself." The latter is no doubt the
original tradition, and the text here must have been modified
In accordance with the theory of P (We.). 31. bowed
49^^'-
—
over the head of the bed] An act of worship, expressing
gratitude to God for the fulfilment of his last wish (cf. i Ki.
i*^). Ho.'s conjecture (based on i Sa. 19^^), that there was
an image at the top of the bed, a possible, though pre- is
carious, explanation of the origin of the custom. The

mistaken rendering of ^ {y.i.) may have arisen from the
was an Egyptian formality
fact that the oath over the staff
(Spiegelberg, Recueil des Travaux^ xxv. 184 ff cf. EB^ . ;
4779^; Sayce, Contemp. Rev., Aug. 1907, 260).

XLVII I. Adoption and blessing of Joseph's two
sons. — I, 2. The introduction to all that follows from :
29. niD"?— imp'i] Cf. Dt. 3i^'*(J), i Ki. 2^—30. 'naDtî] must be taken as
protasis to 'JnNC'31 (Str. Ho. Gu. al.). —omnpa] Kit. "mnp^, to resolve the
contradiction spoken of supra. But where intentional manipulation of the
text is to be suspected, small emendations are of little avail. 31. u'cr:iTV\ ®[ —
T17S p6.^5ov airov, B OI^CLkj (= via») ; cf. Heb. nî. Other Vns. follow
MT, which is undoubtedly right : see 482 493*.
I. nDN'i] So I Sa. 16^ 1922. The pi. nDN'i is more usual in such cases
(G-K. § 144 d'^) : we might also point as Niph. tdnm (Jos. 2^). —At end of
V. add with ffi npv'-ht< ht\—2. in] Better nri. —2b is usually assigned
— —
1^.^—took his two so7is.^ It seems implied in v.^ that Jacob

had not yet seen the lads, — so soon did his last illness follow
his arrival in Egypt. —3-6. P's brief account of the adoption
of Ephraim and Manasseh. Di. thinks the vv. have been
transferred from their original connexion with 49^^^, where
they were spoken in presence of all the brethren. — 3, 4. The
reference is to the Luz (35^^''), where the
revelation at
promise of a numerous offspring was coupled with the
possession of Canaan. On the phraseology, see above.
5. And noiv^ In view of these promises he elevates Ephraim
and Manasseh to the status of full tribes, to share with his
own sons in the future partition of the land. Ephraim a7id
ManasseK\ The order is the only hint that Ephraim was the
leading tribe (cf. v.^^ E) ; but it is not that usually observed
by P Nu. 262^^- 34^^^-, Jos. 14* 16* 17^ otherwise Nu. i^^).
(see ;
— as Reuben and Simeon\ The two oldest are chosen for

comparison. 6. —
Later-born sons of Joseph (none such,
however, are anywhere mentioned) are to be called by the
name of their brethren^ etc.] i.e.y are to be counted as
Ephraimites and Manassites. — 7- ^^^ presence of Joseph
reminds the dying patriarch of the dark day on which he
buried Rachel on the way to Ephrath. The expressions
reproduce those of 35^^"^^ — V^] to my sorrow) lit. (*as a
trouble) upon me '
(cf. 33^^).
The notice —one of the most pathetic things in Genesis is very —

loosely connected with what precedes, and must in its original setting
have led up to something which has been displaced in the redaction.
But it is difficult to find a suitable connexion for the v. in the extant
portions of any of the three sources. In P (to which the word I"J5 at first
sight seems to point), De. Di, al. would put it immediately before [nnyi]
f]DN3 '3N in 49^^ but that view relieves no difficulty, and leads nowhere.
;
A more natural position in that document might be after the mention of

the burial of Leah in 49^^ (v,^^ maybe an interpolation) but the form of ;
the v. is not favourable to that assumption, and no good reason can be
to J because of '?NnB'\ But the cl. comes very naturally after ^ ; and as
there are three other cases of confusion between the two names in this
ch. («• "• 21), the name is not decisive.—4. D'Dy Sip] 28^ cf. 35".— IVT^] ;
—
dJr 't*?! 1*?. ci'^'iy mnN] 17^
—
7. j^s] Juu.ffi + D"1^|, as in every other case where
the name occurs (see on 25^^"). That the difference is documentary, and
points to E rather than P, is a hazardous assumption (Gu.) ; and to
substitute jin, for the sake of accommodation to J (Bruston, Ba.), is quite
—
XLVIII. 3-14 505

imagîned for the transposition. (See Bu. ZATW, iii. 67 f.) Bruston
(inZATW, vii. 208) puts forward the attractive suggestion (adopted by
KS. Ba. Gu. Pro. al.) that the v. introduced a request to be buried in
the same grave as Rachel. Such a wish is evidently impossible in P ;
and Bruston (followed with some hesitation by Ba. KS.) accordingly
found a place for it (with the necessary alterations of text) between 47^9
and 30 (J) against this so**- " seem decisive. Gu. and Pro. assign it to
:
E, the latter placing it after v.'^^ which is certainly its most suitable
position in E. But is the idea after all any more conceivable in E than
in P? The writer who recorded the request, whoever he may have
been, must have supposed that it was fulfilled and it is not just likely ;
that any writer should have believed that Jacob was buried in the grave
traditionally known as Rachel's. No satisfactory solution can be given.
Hupf. and Schr. consider the v. redactional so Bu., who thinks it was ;
inserted to correct P's original statement that Rachel was buried in

Machpelah (see on 49^^).
8, 9. E's narrative is resumed. Observe that Jacob —

sees the boys (who are quite young- children [41^^]), whereas
in ^®*
(J) he could not see. pb is usually assigned to J, but —
for no very convincing reason. lOb, II (E). I had not thought^ —
etc.] The words are charged with deep religious feeling:
gratitude to the God in whose name he is to bless the lads,

and whose marvellous goodness had brought his clouded life
to a happy end. —
12 (E). from between his (Jacob's) knees]
There must be a reference to some rite of adoption not de-
scribed, which being completed, Joseph removes the children
and prostrates himself to receive the blessing (continued in ^^).
— lOa, 13, 14 (J). Whether this is a second interview in J, or
a continuation of that in 47^^"^^, does not appear in either ;
case something has been omitted. lOa. See on 27^. 13 f. — —

The crossing (v.i.) of Jacob's hands has a weird effect the :
blind man is guided by a supernatural impulse, which moves

unerringly in the line of destiny. The right hand conveys
—'?m] + ^
arbitrary. {so — rhu
ffi + — tdkm»]
iJ-'n^-np <tov »xx). 8. 'd] ^juiffi nS. 9.
— D3n3Ni] (B-D.
(& + 'IttKci^. On the pausal seghol, see G-K. 29
p. 80). §§ q,
6od.—ll. G-K. 75w(cf. 3i28)._'n'?^s]
nN-i] § had not judged only Lit. *
'
;
here = opine.' —* have the hardly makes sense.

12. innt^'i] juxffir^ pi. V'jn'?]
Rd. with (&^ d:9N 'i'?.— 14. U'D-nN] xxx ins. T.— "^s^] WP pro'Dnx, deriving
from J '?3iJ', be prudent (whose Piel does not occur) but (& ivaXXd^, U
' ' ;
commutansy ,S i.21-1-k>-», SE^ JIS. These Vns. may be guessing at the

sense but most moderns appeal to Ar. Sakala, a secondary meaning of
;
which is to plait two locks of hair together and bind them to the other
^
— —— —— — —
the richer blessing. — 15, 16. The Blessing (E). —The three-
fold invocation of the Deity reminds us of the Aaronic bene-
diction (Nu. 62*^-), which has some resemblance to a feature
of Babylonian liturgies (see Je. Holleund Paradies^ 30) ''in :
such cases the polytheist names all the gods he worships,

the ancient monotheist all the names and attributes of the
God he knows" (Gu.). before whom 'walked\Q.i. 17^. . . .
who shepherded me] Cf. 49^*, Ps. 23^ 28', Is. 40^^. The
image is appropriate in the mouth of the master-shepherd
—
Jacob (Di.). 16. the Angel evil\ The passages in Jacob's. . .
life where an angel or angels intervene (28^^*^- 31^^ 32^'-) all
belong to the source E they are not, however, specially

;
connected with deliverances from evil and the substitution ;
of '
angel ' for ' God ' is not explained. let my name be
named in them] Let them be known
* as sons of Jacob,' and
reckoned among the tribes of Israel. I7-I9* Continuing ^*
—^Joseph thinks his father had counted on the elder being

(J).
on his (Joseph's right) hand, and
left now correct his will
mistake. — But Jacob, speaking under inspiration, de-

19.
clares his action to be significant. the fulness of the nations]
A peculiar expression for populousness. Cf. Dt. 33^^
('myriads of Ephraim ' ; 'thousands of Manasseh '). —20.
The clause And he blessed them, that day] is (if not redac-
tional) the conclusion of J's account : the words of blessing
are not given. The rest of the v. concludes the blessing of
E (^^^•). By thee {(^ you) shall Israel bless] The formula
must have been in actual use, and is said to be still current
amongst Jews (Str.). he put E. before M.] If the words are
original (E), they call attention to the fact that in the bene-
diction Ephraim had been named first, and find in that slight
locks.' In spite of the philolog-ical equivalence, Dri. is justly sceptical

of so remote an analogy.— niD3n nrjD 'd] (& om. 15. f]Di'-nN] ffi DnK] —
wrongly, the original connexion being with ^^^ niyo] (Nu. 22'*'t) 'ever —
since I was.' ^^F
* from my youth (myjD ?).— 16. For in'^dh, mx reads
'
-,L,Dn._i9. dSini] * but for all that (cf. 28'^).— 20. 13] (K D33.— tii;;] e&US
'
^15: (Niph. ; see on 12^). The most natural form would be Hithpa.
in3n\ —22. inN ddc] ffi Si/cc/â iâiperov, Aq. Cb/jLov ^va. For nriN instead of
nnx, see G-K. § 130^. On 1]^}^ in the sense of 'mountain-slope' {v.s.)f
see Nu. 34", Jos. 15^ [Is. 11^*?], etc.

a
XLVIII. IS-XLIX 507
circumstance an augury of the future pre-eminence of Ephr.

(Gu.). —
21, 22. Closing words to Joseph (E). 21. A pre- —
diction of the return to Canaan, in terms very similar to
50^* (also E). The explicit anticipations of the Exodus are
probably all from this document (15^^ [?] 46* 50'^^^). —22. one
shoitlder\ The word 03?* "^^7 very well (like the synonymous
^ns) have had in common speech the secondary sense of
* mountain-slope,' though no instance occurs in
OT. At all
events there no reasonable doubt that the reference is to
is
the city of Shechem, standing on the slope of Gerizim, the * '
most important centre of Israelite power in early times (see

p. 416), and consecrated by the possession of Joseph's tomb
(Jos. 24^^). The peculiar value of the gift in Jacob's eyes is
that the conquest was a trophy of his warlike prowess, —

tradition which has left no trace whatever except in this v.
(see below). — With my sword and with my bow] Contrast
Jos. 2412.
Vv.2i- stand in no org-anic connexion with each other, or with what
22
precedes. V.22, in particular, not only presupposes a version of the

capture of Shechem different from any found elsewhere * (see p. 422 above),
but is out of harmony with the situation in which the words are assumed
to have been uttered. For it is scarcely credible that Jacob should have
referred thus to a conquest which he had subsequently lost, and which
would have to be recovered by force of arms before the bequest could
take effect. But further, the expression above thy brethren naturally
* '
implies that the portions of the other sons had been allotted by Jacob
before his death. The verse, in short, seems to carry us back to a phase
of the national tradition which ignored the sojourn in Egypt, and repre-
sented Jacob as a warlike hero who had effected permanent conquests in
Palestine, and died there after dividing the land amongst his children.
The situation would thus be parallel to the so-called Blessing of Jacob *
'
in ch. 49, which is also independent of, though not quite incompatible with,
the final recension of the patriarchal history and the migration to Egypt.
For the first statement of this theory, see Meyer, INS, 227, 414 f.
XLIX. \-2%2i.— The Blessing ofJacob.
This important and difficult section —one of the oldest

pieces of Hebrew poetry which we possess —consists of a
*Attempts to bring the notice into line with the recorded history, by
inserting N*? before '3nn3 and 'nt^-pa (as Jos. 24^-) (Kue.), or by taking
'nnp*? as a fut.-pf. (Tu. De. Str. al.), are obviously unsatisfactory.

508 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
series of oracles describing- the characters and fortunes of

the twelve tribes of Israel, as unfolded during the age of the
Judges and under the early monarchy. That it was com-
posed from the first in the name of Jacob appears clearly from
internal indications (vv.^^- ^- ^^^^- ^^) ; but that it was actually
uttered by the patriarch on his death-bed to his assembled
sons is a hypothesis which several considerations combine to
render incredible. In the first place, the outlook of the poem
is bounded (as we shall afterwards see) by a particular
historical situation, removed by many centuries from the
supposed time of utterance. No reason can be imagined
why the vista of the future disclosed to Jacob should open
during the settlement of the tribes in Canaan, and suddenly
close at the reign of David or Solomon why trivial incidents ;
like the maritime location of Zebulun (v.^^), or the royal *
dainties produced by Asher (^^), or even the loss of tribal

'
independence by Issachar (^^), etc., should be dwelt upon to the

exclusion of events of far greater national and religious
importance, such as the Exodus, the mission of Moses, the
leadership of Joshua, or the spiritual prerogatives of the
tribe of Levi. It is obvious that the document as a whole
has historic significance only when regarded as a production
of the age to whichit refers. The analogy of OT prophecy,
which has been appealed to, furnishes no instance of detailed
prevision of a remote future, unrelated to the moral issues
of the speaker's present. In the next place, the poem is
animated by a strong national sentiment such as could not

have existed in the lifetime of Jacob, while there is a com-
plete absence of the family feeling which would naturally
find expression in the circumstances to which it is assigned,
and which, in fact, is very conspicuous in the prose accounts
of Jacob's last days. The subjects of the oracles are not
Jacob's sons as individuals, but the tribes called by their
names (see ^^) ; nor is there any allusion to incidents in the
personal history of Jacob and his sons except in the sections
on Reuben and on Simeon and Levi, and even there a tribal
interpretation is more natural. Finally, the speaker is not
Jacob the individual patriarch, but (as is clear from vv.^-'^^- ^®)
:
XLIX. 1-28A 509

Jacob as representing the ideal unity of Israel (see Kohler,
p. 8 f.). All these facts point to the following conclusion
(which is that of the great majority of modern interpreters)
the poem is a series of vaticinia ex eventu^ reflecting the
conditions and aspirations of the period that saw the consoli-
dation of the Hebrew nationality. The examination of the
separate oracles will show that some (e.g. those on Issachar
and Dan) are certainly pre-monarchic ; and that indeed all
may be so except the blessing on Judah, which presupposes
the establishment of the Davidic kingdom. The process of
composition must therefore have been a protracted one the ;
poem may be supposed to have existed as a traditional

document whose origin dates from the early days of the
Israelite occupation of Palestine, and which underwent
successive modifications and expansions before took final it
shape in the hands of a Judaean poet of the age of David or

Solomon. The conception of Jacob as the speaker belongs
to the original intention of the poem ; the oracles express
the verdict of the collective consciousness of Israel on the
conduct and destiny of the various
tribes, an idea finely sug-
gested by putting them in the mouth of the heroic ancestor
of the nation. Ultimately the song was incorporated in the
patriarchal tradition, probably by the Yahwist, who found a
suitable setting for it amongst the dying utterances of
Jacob.
Literary Parallels. — Before proceeding- to consider the more intricate

problems arising out of the passage, it will be useful to compare it with
(i) Song of Deborah (Ju. 5), and (2) the Blessing of Moses (Dt. 33).
the
— I. The former is like an instantaneous photograph it exhibits the :
attitude and disposition of the tribes in a single crisis of the national

history. It resembles Gen. 49 in the strong feeling of national unity
which pervades it, and in the mingling of blame and commendation. It
reveals, however, a very different historical background. The chief
differences are the entire ignoring of the southern tribes Judah, Simeon,
:
and Levi ; the praise bestowed on Issachar the substitution of Gilead

;
for Gad ; and the division of the unity of Joseph into its constituents
Ephraim and Machir ( = Manasseh). The importance of these and other
divergences for the determination of the relative dates of the two
documents is obvious, although the evidence is frequently of a kind
which makes it very difficult to form a confident judgement. 2. The —
Blessing of Moses shows signs (especially in the section on Joseph) of
5IO THE BLESSING OF JACOB
literary dependence on Gn. 49 ; it is therefore a later composition,
written very probably in North Israel after the division of the kingdom
(see Dri. Deut. 388). distinguished from the Blessing of Jacob by
It is
its uniform tone of benediction, and its strongly religious point of view
as contrasted with the secular and warlike spirit of Gn. 49. Simeon is
passed over in silence, while his * brother Levi is the subject of an
'
enthusiastic eulogium Judah is briefly commended in a prayer to

;
Yah we the separation of Ephraim and Manasseh is recognised in an

;
appendix to the blessing on Joseph. All these indications point more or

less decisively to a situation considerably later than that presupposed
by the oracles of Jacob.
—
Date and Unity of the Poem. That the song is not a perfect literary
unity is suggested first of all by the seemingly complex structure of the
sections on Dan (two independent oracles) and Judah (with three
exordiums in w.^- ^' ^^\ We find, further, that a double motive runs
through the series, viz., (i) etymological play on the name of the tribe
(Judah, Zebulun ?, Dan, Gad, Asher ?), and (2) tribal emblems (chiefly
animal) (Judah, Issachar, Dan, Naphtali, Joseph, Benjamin) one or :
other of these can be detected in each oracle except those on Reuben

and Simeon-Levi. It is, of course, not certain that these are character-
istic of two independent groups of oracles but the fact that both are
;
represented in the sayings on Judah and Dan, while neither appears in

those on Reuben and Simeon-Levi, does confirm the impression of
composition and diversity of origin. The decisive consideration,
however, is that no single period of history can be found which satisfies
all the indications of date drawn from the several oracles. Those on
Reuben, Simeon, and Levi refer to events which belong to a remote
past, and were in all probability composed before the Song of Deborah,
while these events were still fresh in the national memory those on ;
Issachar, Dan, and Benjamin could hardly have originated after the
establishment of the monarchy ; while the blessing of Judah clearly
presupposes the existence of the Davidic kingdom, and must have been
written not earlier than the time of David or Solomon. A still later
date is assigned by most critics since We. {Comp.^ 320) to the blessing
on Joseph, which is generally considered to refer to the kingdom of
North Israel and to the Aramaean wars under the dynasties of Omri
and Jehu. It is argued in the notes below that the passage is
susceptible of a different interpretation from that adopted by the
majority of scholars, and may, in fact, be one of the oldest parts of the
poem. As for the rest of the oracles, their character is such that it
seems quite impossible to decide whether they originated before or after
the founding of the kingdom. In any case we hardly get much
beyond a broad chronological division into pre-Davidic and post-Davidic
oracles but at the same time that distinction is so clearly marked as
;
to exclude absolutely the hypothesis of unity of authorship. —

It has been
supposed by some writers (Renan, Kue. al.) that the poem consists of
a number of fugitive oracles which had circulated independently among
the tribes, and were ultimately collected and put in the mouth of Jacob.
But, apart from the general objection that characterisation of one tribe
—
XLIX. 1-28A 511

by the rest already implies a central point of view, the inadequacy of
the theory seen when we observe that all the long-er passages
is
(Reuben, Simeon-Levi, Judah, Joseph) assume that Jacob is the speaker,
while the shorter pieces are too slight in content to have any signifi-
cance except in relation to the whole.—An intermediate position is
represented by Land, who distinguished six stages in the growth of the
song (i) A primary poem, consisting of the two tristichs, vv.^ and ^,
:
written at the time of David's victories over the Philistines, and cele-
brating the passing of the hegemony from Reuben to Judah to this v.'' :
was afterwards added as an appendix. A

second poem on Judah,
(2)
Dan, and Issachar (vv.»- "• i*'- distichs), describing under animal
:
figures the condition of these tribes during the peaceful interval of

David's reign in Hebron to which was appended later the v. on
:
Benjamin (^). (3) The

Shiloh oracle (vv.^*'-^^)^ dating from the same
period. (4) The decastich on Simeon and Levi (vv.'"'), from the time of
p-^C), a northern
the later Judges. (5) The blessing of Joseph poem
from about the time of Deborah. (6) The five distichs on Zebulun,
Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali (in that order: w.^^- ^^- '»• ^- 21), com-
memorating the victory of Deborah and Barak over the Canaanites.
The theory rests on dubious interpretations, involves improbable
historical combinations, and is altogether too intricate to command
assent but it is noteworthy nevertheless as perhaps the first elaborate
;
attempt to solve the problem of the date and integrity of the poem, and
to do justice to the finer lines of structure that can be discovered in it.
On the whole, however, the theory of the 'traditional document' (v.s.),
altered and supplemented as it was handed down from one generation
to another, while sufficiently elastic, seems the one that best satisfies all
the requirements of the problem (so Gu. 420 f.).
The order in which the tribes are enumerated appears to be partly
genealogical, partly geographical. The six Leah-tribes come first,
and in the order of birth as given in chs. 29 f., save that Zebulun and
Issachar change places. Then follow the four concubine or hybrid
tribes but the order is that neither of birth nor of the mothers, the two
;
Zilpah-tribes, Gad and Asher, coming between the Bilhah tribes, Dan
and Naphtali. The Rachel-tribes, Joseph and Benjamin, stand last.
Geographically, we may distinguish a southern group (Reuben, Simeon,
Levi, Judah), a northern (Zebulun, Issachar, Dan ?, Gad [trans-
Jordanic], Asher, Naphtali), and a central group (Joseph, Benjamin).
The general agreement of the two classifications shows that the
genealogical scheme itself reflects the tribal affinities and historical
antecedents by which the geographical distribution of the tribes in
Palestine was in part determined. The suggestion of Peters {Early
Heh. Story, 61 if.), that the ages of Jacob's children represent approxi-
mately the order in which the respective tribes obtained a permanent
footing in Canaan, is a plausible one, and probably contains an element
of truth ; although the attempt to reconstruct the history of the invasion
and conquest on such precarious data can lead to no secure results. It
is clear at all events that neither the genealogical nor the geographical
principle furnishes a complete explanation of the arrangement in Gn.
;;
49 and we have to bear in mind the possibility that this ancient

;
document may have preserved an older tradition as to the grouping and

relations of the tribes than that which is given in the prose legends
(chs. 29. 30). —
On the question whether a sojourn in Egypt is pre-
supposed between the utterance and the fulfilment of the predictions,
the poem naturally throws no direct light. It is not improbable that in
this respect it stands on the same plane as 48^ (34. 38), and traces the
conquest of Palestine back to Jacob himself.
—
Metrical Form, See Sievers, Metrische Studien, i. 404ff., ii. 152 ff.,
361 ff. The poem (vv.^"^) exhibits throughout a clearly marked
metrical structure, the unit being the trimeter distich, with frequent
parallelism between the two members. The lines which do not
conform to this type (vv.'*'' "^- ^^, and esp. 24b-26) ^re so few that
interpolation or corruption of text may reasonably be suspected
although our knowledge of the laws of Hebrew poetry does not
entitle us to say that an occasional variation of rhythm is in itself
inadmissible.
Source. —
Since the poem is older than any of the Pentateuchal
documents, the only question that arises is the relatively unimportant
one of the stage of compilation at which it was incorporated in the
narrative of Gen. Of the primary sources, E and P are excluded
the former because of the degradation of Reuben, which is nowhere
recognised by E and the latter by the general tendency of that
;
work, and its suppression of discreditable incidents in the story of

the patriarchs. The passage is in perfect harmony with the repre-
sentation of J, and may without difficulty be assigned to that docu-
ment, as is done by the majority of critics. At the same time, the
absence of literary connexion with the narrative leaves a considerable
margin of uncertainty and it is just as easy to suppose that the in-
;
sertion took place in the combined narrative JE, perhaps by the same
hand which inserted the Blessing of Moses in Deut. (see We. CompJ^ 62).
That it was introduced during the final redaction of the Pent, is less
probable, especially if "^^^^ ("Ti^m) was the original continuation of ^''
in P
(see on v.^).
Monographs on the Song Diestel, Der Segen Jakob's in Genes, xlix.

:
historisch erldutert (1853) Land, Disputatio de carmine Jacohi (1858);

;
Kohler, Der Segen Jakob's mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der alien

Versionen und des Midrasch historisch-kritisch untersucht U7id erkldrt
(1867); cf. also Meier, Geschichte der poetischen National Literatur der
Ilebrder {18^6), pp. 109-113; Peters, JSBL, 1886, pp. 99-116; and see
the copious reff. in Tu. or Di.
—
Introduction. The poem begins with a preamble
I, 2.
(v.^)from the hand of the writer who composed or collected

the oracles and put them in the mouth of Jacob. ^^ is a
prose introduction, supplied probably by the editor who

Song ^*
incorporated the in the narrative of J orJE; while
appears to be a fragment of P divorced from its original
— '
I, 2 513
connexion with ^saL^ i^y rJep^ — ^^ ^j^^^ j ^^^^ make knowHy

eic] The poem is expressly characterised as a prophecy (not,
however, as a blessing [as ^sbjj^
which it obviously is as
ascribed to Jacob, though the singer's real standpoint is
contemporary or retrospective (p. 508 above). in the after
days\ The furthest horizon of the speaker's vision {v.i.). —
2. A trimeter distich, exhibiting the prevalent metrical
scheme of the poem :
Assemble, ye sons of Jacob,

And hearken to Israel your father !
With the call to attention, cf. 4^2, Dt. 32^, Is. iô 28l^
etc. —
Whether in the mind of the poet Israel is the literal
or the ideal father of the nation may be doubtful : cf. v.^,
and p. 509 above.

3, 4. Reuben.
' Reuben My first-born art thou :
!
My strength and best of my vigour.

Exceeding in pride and exceeding in fury,
* Impetuous as water, thou may'st not excel.
For thou wentest up to thy father's bed ;
There thou profanedst ("thel couch. , . .
The original presents both obscurities and niceties not

reflected in the translation ; but the general sense is clear.
As the first-born, Reuben endowed with a superabundant
is
vitality, which is the cause at once of his pre-eminence and

of his undoing : his energy degenerates into licentious
I. D'D'n nnnxn] The phrase occurs Heb. OT (Nu. 24^^

13 times in
Dt. 430 3i29, Is. 22, Jer. 2320 30^4 48" Hos. 3°, Mic. 4I, Dn.
4939, Ezk. 38^6,
io"t). and its Aram, equivalent in Dn. 2^. In the prophets it is used
technically of the advent of the Messianic age here and elsewhere ;
(Nu. 24^^ etc.) it has the general sense of the remote future (like Ass.
ajirat ^mi'. KAT-, 143). That the eschatological sense is primary, and
the other an imitation of prophetic style (Gu.), cannot be proved and ;
there is no justification for deleting either the phrase itself (Staerk,

ZATW, xi. 247ft'.), o** <^he whole clause in which it occurs (Land). 2. —
The repetition of lyDaî is against the rules of parallelism. We may
either omit the word in ^ (Gu. Sie.), or vary the expression (u't^pni,
U'mni) in2^(C-', Ba.). Metrically, either expedient would be admissible,
but the former is much easier. In (Sr^- ^'- aKOvaaTe is used thrice,
33
— —': '
passion, which impels him to the crime that draws down

the As a characterisation of the tribe, this will
curse.
mean that Reuben had a double share of the frenetic *
Bedouin nature, and wore out his strength in fierce warfare

with neighbouring tribes. If the outrage on his father's
honour (v.*) have historic significance (see below), it must
denote some attack on the unity of Israel which the collective
conscience of the nation condemned. It is to be noted that
the recollection of the event has already assumed the

legendary form, and must therefore reach back to a time
considerably earlier than the date of the poem (Gu.). $hj 43-
exceeding . . . excei\ No English word brings out the
precise force of the original, where the y/ in'' occurs three
times in a sense hovering between exceed and excel.' '
'
*
The idea of excess being native to the root, the renderings

pride and fury are perhaps preferable to ' dignity ' and
* power,' ^° as well as ^ being understood sensû malo^ as a
censure of Reuben. —4b. Then . . . went up\ A corrupt text
3a. 'JIN n'B'NT (Dt. 21", cf. Ps. 78^^ 105^^)] Not dpxv Tî^^f^y fiov ((&Q),
still less principium doloris mei (U from jix, '

so Aq. 2.) but
trouble '
; ;
*
best part of my virility ' (.SCo). On n'B'Nn, see p. 12 as Hos. 12*. ; JIK
3b. ®r <rK\7}pbs (pipeadai koI aKXrjpbs avdadr}$ ; 'S prior in donis, major in
imperio. —nm (abst. pro concr.) might mean *
excess (Aq. 2.), or * superi-
'
ority '
remnant (,§ so Peters, p. 100) whether it is here used in
CF), or * ' ; :
a g-ood sense or a bad (for the latter, cf. Pr. 17') depends on the meaning
assigned to the next two words. riNK'] Lit. 'hfting' (fflr Aq, 20.S), —
several times means exaltation but in Hab. i' it has distinctly the
*
' ;
sense of arrogance,' the idea preferred above. To read dn^, turbulence

'
*
(Gu.), is unnecessary, and nxB', 'destruction' (Peters), gives a wrong

turn to the thought. Tj;] Pausal for TJ;, —
power,' but the sense of 'fury' '
is supported by v.', Is. 25^ 4. "imn —

ins] ®r iÔ^picras ws vScap, firj iKîaTjS', —
Aq. ^ddfiêvaas . . . irepia-oreija-r]^ ; 2. virep^êaas . . . ovk ârj TrepicraSTepoi ;
V effusus es sicut aqua, non crescas S ««»Q.sZ. ; ]j |.»-!iD *^^ L \ \^.

The comparison water is ambiguous and it is doubtful if we may
to ;
introduce the simile of water boiling over (2® and many moderns). '
'
The image may be that of a wild rushing torrent, a fit emblem of the —
unbridled passion which was Reuben's characteristic (so ©o). ms] jju. —
ntns. Though the other Vns. also have 2nd pers. we cannot assume that
they read so and the analogy of v.^ leads us to expect another abst.
;
pro concr. The noun is Hit. Xey. the ptcp. occurs Ju. g*, Zeph. 3*, with ;
the sense reckless or irresponsible (cf. mms, Jer. 23^^).

' '
In Arab, the
' *
^ means be insolent,' in Aram. be lascivious the common idea is

* * '
:
—
XLIX. 3,4 515

for various suggestions, v.u Gu.'s trans. *
Then I profaned
the couch which he ascended,' at least softens the harsh
change from 2nd pers. to 3rd.
The ' of Reuben must rest on some early ascendancy or

birthright '
prowess of the which has left no traces in history. Its choice of a

tribe
settlement E of the Jordan (Nu. 32, etc.), shows an attachment to nomadic
habits, and perhaps an unfitness for the advance to civilised life which
the majority of the tribes had to make. In the Song of Deborah, Reuben
is still an important tribe, but one that had lost enthusiasm for the
national cause (Ju. s^^f.), i^ the Blessing of Moses it still survives, but
is apparently on the verge of extinction (Dt. 33^). It was doubtless
exhausted by struggles like those with the Hagarenes (1 Ch. 5^0. isff.^^
but especially with the Moabites, who eventually occupied most of its
territory (cf. Nu 32-'^, Jos. \2^^^' with Is.
15, Jer. 48 pass., and Moabite
Stone). —The incident to which the downfall of Reuben is here traced
(**^*') isconnected with the fragmentary notice of 35^^, and is variously
interpreted (i) According to Rob. Sm. KM"^, 109^, Steuer. Einw. 16,
:
Ho., it records the fact that Reuben had misused its power as the
leading tribe to assail the independence of a weaker member of the
confederation (Bilhah, or one of the Bilhah-tribes), a rather hazardous —
speculation. (2) Another theory, not necessarily inconsistent with the
former (see Rob. Sm. I.e.), finds a reference to the persistence in Reuben
of an old Semitic custom of marriage with the wives or concubines of a
(deceased!) father (Di., Sta. GVI, \. 151 f.), which the general moral
sense of Israel had outgrown. In this case we must suppose that 49*
contains the germ of the legend of which 35^2, with its particular
mention of Bilhah, is a later phase. (3) It is probable that the form of
the legend has been partly determined by a mythological motive, to
which a striking parallel is found in the story of Phoenix and Amyntor
(//. ix. 447 ff. quoted above, p. 427). Metrical Structure. The oracle is
:
better divided as above into three distichs, than (with MT) into two
tristichs (so Land, who assigns each to a separate author). The trimeter
measure is easily traced throughout (except 1. 3) by following the Heb.
accents, supplying Maqqeph after '3 and in in v.l Line 3 may be
scanned uu '
I u '
I u ' (Siev.).
perhaps * uncontrollableness {ut s.\ nrnn-SN] For the pausal a, see

' —
G-K. § —
53 «, and cf. Ru. 2'^ 4b. No very acceptable rendering of this
difficult clause has been proposed. If we follow the accentuation, 'yij^'
is obj. of nSy, and rh^ 'yis' a detached sentence Then thou actedst :
*
profanely. He went up to my bed but apart from the harsh change ' ;
of person, this is inadmissible, because ^Vn is never used intransitively.
To read O'^V with <& is perhaps a too facile emendation and to omit nSy ;
with IB is forbidden by rhythm. On the whole it is best (with Gu.) to

point P^Vn, and take rhv as a rel. cl. {y.s.). Other suggestions are:
n^y 'yis' 'n (Land) r\rh-i 'yiis' (Geig. Kit.) ; ?l"iVv '- (Ba.); but all these are,
;
for one reason or another, objectionable.

: ;
5l6 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
5-7. Simeon and Levi.

" Simeon and Levi —brothers !
Weapons of ruth are their dag-gerS (?).

• Into their council my
would not enter, soul
In their assembly my mind would not join
For in their anger they slaughter men,
And in their gloating they disable oxen.
' Accursed be their wrath for it is fierce,
And their rage for it is cruel!
I will divide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel.
5a. brothers] Hardly o/xo'yi/w/xot (schol. in Field) = * true

brother-spirits '
(Tu. al.), or * associates '
in a common enter-
prise. The probably a survival from an old
epithet is
tradition in and L. were the only sons of Leah

w^hich S.
(see 34^- ^^ cf. Mey. INS, 286I, 426). It is universally
;
assumed that that incident the treacherous attack on —

—
Shechem is the ground of the curse here pronounced but ;
the terms of the oracle are perfectly general and in part

unsuited to the supposed circumstances and it seems to me ;
to be the habitual character of the tribes which is denounced,

and not any particular action. —5b. The transl. is doubtful,
5b. (& avverikeaav &8tKlav i^ alpiaeus adrQv (OL. consummaverunt

iniquitatem adinventionis suce) ; Aq. aKeirj dSidas dvaa-Katpal [aiirCov'] ;
"B vasa iniquitatis hellantia [Je. arma eortim]; 5 JVii05> PP^

tOCnJL-»-2 ; 5r^ Nnna nay pnnnmn ynN3 ; ST J N'n 31^D^D'? nnv^ nvi ['jkd]
pnmynonc'N.
— '''73] So Aq. 'H&'dP
but juaCErE*^ ^V? 'they accomplished.
; :
Dn^mDO] As to the cons, text, that of cannot be certainly restored ©

Kethib is supported by Aq. Ê^ ('nha?? cf. Ezk. 16^ ai^^ 291*), by EJ :
(from v'
""^^j ^^^ lEz.), and probably U. The textual tradition must
therefore be accepted as fairly reliable. Of the many Heb. etymologies
proposed (see Di. 459), the most plausible are those which derive from
J TiD, or (reading 'n?p) from ^Z "'"'3. * to dig. No ^J ti3, * dig,' is actually '
found, though it might perhaps be assumed as a by-form of m3 : this

would give the meaning 'digging instrument' (cf. gladio confodere),
which VoUers {ZA, xiv. 355) tries to support from Ass. The sj ""i^
means in Ar. * to turn or ' wheel round ; hence Di. conj. that m,;p may
' '
be a curved knife or sabre. Some weapon suits the context, but what
exactly it is must remain uncertain. How far the exegesis has been
influenced by the resemblance to the Gr. fidxaipa (R. Johanan [d. 279
A.D.], cited in Ber. ^. § 99 Ra.) we cannot tell. Ba. and Gu. take the
;
word to be n-j^p, the former rendering plots (fr. Ar. makara, to plot ') '
'
*
— — ;
XLIX. 5-7 517

owing partly to uncertainty of text, and partly to the
obscurity of the air. Acy. ni^p (v.t.). The rendering above
gives a good sense, and Ba.'s objection, that daggers are
necessarily implements of violence, has no force. 6a. council —
. . . assembly\ The tribal gatherings, in which deeds of
violence were planned, and sanguinary exploits gloated over.
The distich expresses vividly the thought that the true elhos
of Israelwas not represented in these bloody-minded gather-
ings. —6b.
men oxen^ The nouns are collectives.
. . .
slaughter hough] Perfects of experience. The latter

. . .
operation (disable by cutting the sinew of the hind-leg) was

occasionally performed by Israelites on horses (Jos. ii^-^,
2 Sa. 8*) to do it to a domestic animal was evidently con-
;
sidered inhuman. No such atrocity is recorded of the

assault on Shechem (see 3428). •>«•
—7b. in Jacob . . . in Israel]

The speaker is plainly not the individual patriarch, nor the
Almighty (Land), but the personified nation.
and the latter 'pits' (cf. n-i?p, Zeph. 2^); but neither Dni?p oan ^Va (Ba.)
nor Dn'ni?p DCm 'S? ['knavery and violence are their pits'] (Gu.) is so
good as the ordinary interpretation. Ba., however, rightly observes that
Dn'"i?p yields a better metre than Dn'n— (so Siev.). 6a. n23] Read with —
(&. nn?, *my liver,' the seat of mental affections in La. 2^^ (cf. Ps. 16^
30^3 578 108^: MT

nus): cf. kabittu, Gemuth,' in Ass.—^^n] au nn\
*
—
Since nns is masc, rd. ^^.^ 6b. psn] * self-will,' 'wantonness' cf. Neh. ;
924- 37^ Est. i^ 9^ etc. -m'] On certain difficulties in the usage of the
word, see Batten, ZATW, xxviii. 189 ff., where it is argued that the
— —
sense is general *make useless.' litt'] Aq. SUSC^ read -\v^, 'wall,'
perhaps to avoid the supposed contradiction with 34-^^'. Hence the
correct ravpov of (& is instanced in Mechilta as a change made by the
—
LXX translators (see p. 14). 7. nnK, omayi] ux nnK, Dmam.— jpj Here
pausal form of ty (ct. v.').
* Zimmem {ZA^ \\\. 162 f.) finds in ^^ a. reminiscence of the mutilation
of the celestial Bull by Gilgame§ and Eabani in the Bab. GilgameS-Epic.

Simeon and Levi, like GilgameS and Eabani, represent the Gemini of
the Zodiac ; and it is pointed out that the Bull in the heavens is -qfilro/xos,
i.e. only its fore-half appears as a constellation. The vâ then corre-
sponds to the tyrant Humbaba, who was slain by Gilgame§ and Eabani
and Jacob's curse answers to the curse of IStar on the two heroes for
—
mutilating the Bull. Whatever truth there may be in this mythological
interpretation, it does not relieve us of the necessity of finding a historical
explanation of the incidents.
——
5l8 THE BLESSING OF JACOB

The dispersion of these two tribes must have taken place at a very
early period of the national history. As regards Simeon, it is doubtful
if it ever existed as a separate geographical unit. P is only able to
assign to it an inheritance scooped out of the territory of Judah (cf.
Jos. 19^"^ with 1226-32.42. gee also i Ch. 428-^3); and so-called Simeonite
cities are assigned to Judah as early as the time of David (i Sa. 27'
303", 2^ ; cf. I Ki. 19^). In the Blessing of Moses it is passed
2 Sa.
over in silence. Traces of its dispersion may be found in such Simeonite
names as Shime'i, Shaiil, Yamm in other tribes (Rob. Sm.JPh. ix. 96);
and we may assume that the tribe had disappeared before the establish-
ment of the monarchy (see Steuer. 70 ff. ; Meyer, INS, 75 ff.)- Very —
diiferent was the fate of Levi. Like Simeon, it lost its independence
and, as a secular tribe, ceased to exist. But its scattered members had
a spiritual bond of unity in the possession of the Mosaic tradition and
the sacred lot (Dt. 33^^'), in virtue of which it secured a privileged
position in the Israelite sanctuaries (Ju. i7f.)> and was eventually re-
constituted on a sacerdotal basis. The contrast between this passage,
where Levi is the subject of a curse, and Dt. 33, where its prerogatives
are celebrated with enthusiasm, depends on the distinction just indi-
cated here Levi is the secular tribe, destroyed by its own ferocity,
:
whose religious importance has not yet emerged there, it is the Priestly ;
tribe, which, although scattered, yet holds the sacra and the Torah of
the Yahwe-religion (We. Comp.^ 136 ff.). —
The Metre is regular, except
that in the last two lines the trimeters are replaced by a binary couplet.
That is no sufficient reason for deleting them as an interpolation
(Siev.).
8-12. Judah.
* Judah ! Thee shall thy brethren praise
Thy hand on the neck of thy foes
Bow down to thee shall thy father's sons.
• A lion's whelp is Judah,

From the prey, my son, thou'rt gone up I
He crouched, he couched like a lion.

And an old lion —who shall arouse him?
10 Departs not the sceptre from Judah,

Nor staff from between his feet,
Until . come.
. . (?), . . .
And to him the peoples obey.
** Binding his ass to the vine.

And his foal to the choicest vine I
He washes his raiment in wine,

And his clothes in the blood of the grape!
^ With eyes made dull by wine,
And teeth whitened with milk !
— —— —
XLIX. 8-IO 519

8. Thee] The emphasis on the pron. (see G-K. § 135 e)
is explained by the contrast to the preceding oracles: at

last the singer comes to a tribe which he can unreservedly
praise. Nowhere else does the poem breathe such glowing
enthusiasm and such elevation of feeling as here. The glories
of Judah are celebrated in four aspects: (i) as the premier
tribe of Israel, ^\ (2) as the puissant and victorious lion-
tribe, ^ ; (3) as the bearer (in some sense) of the Messianic
hope, ^0; (4) as lavishly endowed with the blessings of
nature, "'•. — nn^'"l'., I'l'î^] The same fanciful etymology as in
29^. thy hand . . foes] The image seems to be that of

.
a defeated enemy, caught by the (back of the) neck in his

flight, and crushed (Ex. 23^7, Ps. 18^1, Jb. 16^^).— thy breth-
ren thy father's sons] The other tribes, who acknowledge

. .
the primacy of Judah. 9. A vivid picture of the growth of —

Judah's power; to be compared with the beautiful lyric,
Ezk. 192-9.— « lion's whelp] So Dt. 33^2 (of Dan). The
image naturally suggests the mighty youth of the tribe, as * '
its full development is represented by the lion^ and old lion

of the following lines. Hence the cl. H^y — ^?.l?^ is rendered
by some (Gu. al.) : On prey^ my son, thou hast grown up
(been reared), which is perhaps justified by Ezk. 19^. But
it is better to understand it of the lion's ascent, after a raid,
to his mountain fastness, where he rests in unassailable
security ^^). —
he crouches, etc.] So (of Israel as a whole)
Nu. 24^. lOa. Judah's political pre-eminence. sceptre . . .
staff] The latter word (Pi^HD) might be used personally =

8. ^^'] juuuffi^ ?I"3;. — 9. niao] ffi ^k ^XaffroO, taking the word as in 8",
Ezk. 17'. — K'n*?] (Ir (TKOfivos, & h5|> pQ-ii' The common rendering
* lioness' is based on Arab., but it is by no means certain that in Heb.
the word denotes never construed as fem.
specially the female. It is ;
and in Ezk. 19^ the pointing no) shows that the Massoretes considered
H'^h as masc. lOa. tsniJ' and ppnn are found together in Ju. 5^^, where
ppno (II Va !]2'd) has the personal sense of commander.' But in Nu. 21 ^8, *
Ps. 60^ [=108^] it denotes the commander's staff; and since ontf is
always the instrument, the impersonal sense is to be preferred here :
hence the fipx'^" of €r is wrong, and the personal renderings of 'no in

all Vns. at least doubtful.— vS:t j'no] axx vVjt p3D, 'from between his
banners,' gives no sense. ffiGH interpret after Dt. 28^^ 'from his
——
*prescnber [of laws]' {(^'^^^^ al.) ; but tOT^' is never so

used, and parallelism requires that Ppno should be under-
stood of the commander's sâff (Nu. 21^^ Ps. 60^= 108^).
from hetiideen his feet\ The chieftain is conceived as seated
with his wand of office held upright in front of him. The

Bedouin sheikhs and headmen of villages are said still to
carry such insignia of authority.
The question arises whether the emblems denote (a) king-ly authority,
or miUtary leadership of the other tribes, or merely (c) tribal auto-
[h)
nomy. Dri. {JPh. xiv. 26) decides for {a), because (i) oatJ', without
qualification, sug-gests a royal sceptre (2) the last phrase presents the ;
(3) the word nnnsi" in

picture of a king seated on a throne ^^ most
;
naturally expresses the homage due to a king (cf. 37'). But in favour
of (c) it mig-ht be urged (1) that ppno never has this meaning, and (2)
that ens' is the word for 'tribe' {e.g. vv.^^-'^), and, if the passage be
early, is likely to be used as the symbol of tribal independence. The
idea of military hegemony (6) is in no way suggested, apart from the
connexion with v.**, which is dubious. The point has an important
bearing on the exegesis of the next cl. If («) be right, the Davidic
monarchy is presupposed, and '^^^ assigns a term to its continuance ;
whereas, if (c) be right, ^*"' is possibly (not necessarily) a prophecy

of David and his dynasty. See, further, the note at the end of this
verse.
lOb. The logical relation of the two halves of the v. is

^^* endure until
clear : the state of things described by shall
thighs ; and hence C^ 'from his sons' sons,' W 'from his seed.' — lob.
n^'B' —ny] ffi0. ^ws h.v ^\dy tcl dTroKcLfxcva aury [vars. y tA airoKel/xepa . . .,
V dir<5/cetTat . . . etc.]; & wjOI 01.\ O? ,_iD IZjj? ]iDpL ; U donee

veniat qui mittendus est (reading n^^ : cf. litXodfJi, (5 ip/j,r]v€6€Tai. ' Airea-
raXixhos), Jn. 9"^) ; ^^ Nni3'?D N'n r\hni nh'sj-d 'n'n ny NoVy ny ; W^ *n" n pi ly
'ua Tyi Nn^cD H^ba. This last curious rendering (* the youngest of his
sons ') is followed by Kimchi and others and apparently rests on a ;
misunderstanding of i^n:)^ (' afterbirth ') in Dt. 28^'' (^T^ Nn33 i^yi).—"'3 ny]
Only here with impf. With pf. (26^^ 41*^ 2 Sa. 23^") it always marks a
limit in the past (' until') but ny alone sometimes means 'while,' both
;
with pf. and impf. (1 Sa. 14^^, Ps. 141IO), and so iff m (Ca. 1^2), nV ny (Pr.
8^^), and ah hk'n ly 725 a. The transl. as long
(Ec. 12^- ^- ^) : see BDB, p. '
as is thus perhaps not altogether impossible, though very improbable.

'
nh'&l MSS and mx nW', probably the original text. The scriptio plena may
have no better foundation than the common Jewish interpretation ir?*,
'his son,' —
an impossible etymology, since there is no such word as '?'?'
in Heb., and the two forms which appear to have suggested it (viz., NH
S''p9' = ' foetus '
and n;^!;'^' afterbirth '
[Dt. are obviously super-
28''' t])
ficial and fallacious analogies. The Mass. vocalisation is therefore

— —
XLIX. loB 521
—something happens which shall inaugurate a still more

glorious future. Whether this event be the advent of a
person — an ideal Ruler — who shall take the sceptre out of
Judah's hands, or a crisis in the fortunes of Judah which
shall raise that tribe to the height of its destiny, is a
question on which no final opinion can be expressed (see
below). and to him] Either Judah, or the predicted Ruler,
according to the interpretation of 1^^*. obedience of peoples]
Universal dominion, which, however, need not be understood
absolutely.
The crux of the passage is thus ^°''« rh'iff ku'-'3 ny. For a fuller
:
statement of the various interpretations than is here possible, see

Werliin, De laudihus Judce, 1838 (not seen) Dri. JPh. xiv. 1-28 (and ;
open to question, and we are free to try any pronunciation of the Kethib
nhtff which promises a solution of the exegetical riddle with which we
are confronted. In spite of the unanimity of the Vns., the pointing

nîff is suspicious for the reasons given above, the presence of b* in — —
an early document, and the want of a subj. in the relative sentence.
On the other hand, the attempts to connect the word with nh^ff, * be ^
quiet,' are all more or less dubious, {a) There is no complete parallel
in Heb. to a noun like n^T from a n"'? root. If it be of the type gtfSl,
the regular form would be 'i'?'?' although Kon. (ii. p. 147) argues that
;
as we find naa alongside of 'd?, so we might have a rh'tff alongside of

'i'?T. Again, if 6 be an apocopated form of the nominal termination
6n, the ^ would naturally be not n'72' but h'& (in Arab. = flow,' •
whence seily *a torrent') or W. It is true there are a few examples

of Mwapocopated nouns of this type from n"*? verbs (jis:p, jin'N [Ezk.
40^^?], jiirt [Gn. 3^^t —
prob. an error for the reg. jV-jn, Hos. 9", Ru.
4^H]) and the possibility of deriving the form in 6 from a root of this
;
kind cannot be absolutely excluded (cf. mjN with pjt^). (b) But even
if these philological diflEiculties could be removed, there remains the
objection that hSb* (as contrasted with D*?'^) is in OT at most a negative

word, denoting mere tranquillity rather than full and positive prosperity,
and is often used of the careless worldly ease of the ungodly. For all
these reasons it is difficult to acquiesce in the view that nV can be a
designation of the Messiah as the Peaceful or the Pacifier:, while to
change the pointing and render till tranquillity {jh&) 'come,' is exposed
to the additional objection that the iSi of the following line is left
—
without an antecedent. nnp'] (Pr. 30^'^t) Dag. forte dirimens. The sj
appears in Ar. wakiha, be obedient' Sab. np\ That a vb. ('"^qi??, "i?!?)
*
;
would be more natural (Ba.) is not apparent the vbs. in ^^J para- ;
phrase the sense given above. The sJ was evidently not understood
by ®f0 {wpoa-doKia), U {expectatio\ Aq. (avaTrj/xa), 5 ^QJUJCQJ all of which

probably derived from J ni,! fAq. from J ^^P> U- • BDB).
more Posnanski, Schilo Ein Beitrag zur Gesch-
briefly Gen. 410-415);
ichte der Messiaslehre Ausleg. von Gn. ^9^" im Altert. his zum
: i Theil :
Ende des MA, 1904 Di. 462 ff. The renderings grammatically admis-
; —
sible fall into two groups, (i.) Those which adhere to the text, rec,
taking nS'B' as nom. pr. {a) Until Shiloh come (Shiloh, a name of the
*
'
Messiah), the most obvious of all translations, first became current in

versions and comm. of the i6th cent., largely through the influence of
Seb. Miinster (1534). Although the Messianic acceptation of the passage
prevailed in Jewish circles from the earliest times, it attached itself
either to the reading nW (ii. below) or to the rendering his son (Vv), '
'
or (later and more rarely) to '"h 'p ('gifts to The earliest trace
him').
(if not the actual origin) of Shiloh as a personal name is found in the
following passage of the Talmud {Sank. gSb) nSn ndSj; nn'N : n"? m noK
ny noNiK' idv n'?'K' now nh'& '-\ '3t iDty no n't^D*? noN pnr '3ii ntrD"? nox Snidsj'i nnS
n'?'B' N3' 'D (the in Echa Rabha, with the addition
words are repeated
3'n3 rh^') : The world was created only for the sake of David
**
Rab said, ;
but Samuel said. For the sake of Moses but R. Yohanan said. For the ;
sake of the Messiah. What is his name ? Those of the school of R.

Shela say, Shiloh is his name, as it is said, Until Shiloh come.'" The *
sequel of the quotation " Those of the school of R. Yannai say,

is :
Yinnon is his name, as it is said (Ps. 72''), Let his name be for ever,
before the sun let his name be perpetuated (jiv). Those of the school of
R. Haninah say, Haninah is his name, as it is said (Jer. 16'^), For I
will give you no favour (nj':q). And some say Menahem is his name, as
as it is said (La. i^^). For comforter (onap) and restorer of my soul is far
from me. And our Rabbis say, The leprous one of the school of Rabbi
is his name, as it is said (Is. 53^), Surely our sicknesses he hath borne,
and our pains he hath carried them, though we did esteem him stricken
(5C. with leprosy), smitten of God, and afflicted." Now there is nothing
here to suggest that Shiloh was already a current designation of the
Messiah any more than, e.g.^ the verb pj' in Ps. 72" can have been a
Messianic title. Yet, as Dri. says, it is "in this doubtful company that
Shiloh is first cited as a name of the Messiah, though we do not learn
how the word was read, or what it was imagined to signify." Sub-
sequently Shiloh as a personal name appears in lists of Messianic titles
of the nth cent. (Posn. 40), and it is so used (alongside of the interpre-
tation iW) by Samuel of Russia (1124). Partly from this lack of
traditional authority, and partly from the impossibility of finding a
significant etymology for the word (-y.*.), this explanation is now
universally abandoned. (i) —
Until he [Judah] come to Shiloh' (Herder,
*
Ew. De. This is grammatically unexceptionable

Di. [hesitatingly] al.).
(cf. I Sa. 4^2), and has

favour the fact that n'?'r (i'??', i^T [orig.
in its
p^T]) everywhere in OT is the name of the central Ephraimite sanctuary
in the age of the Judges (Jos. i8^^-, i Sa. 1-4 etc.). At the great
gathering of the tribes at Shiloh, where the final partition of the land
took place (Jos. 18 f.), Judah is imagined to have laid down the military
leadership which had belonged to it during the wars of conquest so ;
that the prophecy marks the termination of that troubled period of the
national life. But all this is unhistorical. The account in Jos. 18 belongs
— — —
XLIX. loB 523

to the later idealisation of the conquest of Canaan there is no evidence ;
that Judah ever went and none of a military hegemony of that

to Shlloh,
tribe over the others, or of a subjugation of peoples (^"''/S), until the time ' '
of David, by which time Shiloh had ceased to be the central sanctuary.

Even if (with Di.) we abandon the reference to Jos. 18, and take the
sense to be merely that Judah will remain in full warlike activity till
it has conquered its own territory, it is difficult to see (as Di. himself
acknowledges) how that consummation could be expressed by a coming

to Shiloh. (c) The translation As long as one comes to Shiloh,' i.e. for
*
ever(Hitz. Tu.), gives a sense to '3 ny which is barely defensible. (ii.) —

Those which follow the text underlying all ancient Vns. except 3J, viz.
n^rri"? -wffH. (a) 'Until he comes to that which is his' (Oielli, Br.)
involves an improbable use of the ace. and it is not easy to see how ;
Judah's coming to his own could be the signal for the cessation of any
prerogatives previously enjoyed by him. (b) Until that which is his shall '
come ' a legitimate rendering but the thought

is ; open to the same
is
objection as ii. (a). (c). The most noteworthy of group of inter-

this
pretations is :
* Until he come whose '
[it is], sc. the sceptre, the kingdom,
the right, etc. ; This has the support not only of
i.e. the Messiah.
nearly Vns., but of Ezk. 21^^ (where, however, the subj. tD£5B'on is ex-
all
pressed). The omission of the subj. is a serious syntactic difficulty ;
and this, added to the questionable use of "b* in an early and Judaean
passage, makes this widely accepted interpretation extremely pre-
carious. The first objection would be
removed if (after a suggestion
of We. [see Comp.'^ 320]) we
could delete the following i*?! as a gloss,
and read Until he come whose is the obedience,' etc.
'
But metrical
considerations preclude this, as well as the more drastic excision of
—
rhv as a gloss on iSi {ih. 321). Of conjectural emendations the only
one that calls for notice is that of Ba. (followed by Gressmann), who
reads nVo * Until his ruler {i.e. the Messiah) come.'
:
With regard to the general scope of the v., the question recurs,
whether the term fixed by ^^ô- is historic or ideal ; whether, in other
words, it is a prophecy of the Davidic kingdom or of a future Messiah,
(i) The tendency of recent scholars has been to regard v.^^ as Messianic,
but interpolated (We. Sta. Di. Ho. Dri. al.), on the double ground that
it breaks the connexion between ^ and ^^, and that the idea of a personal
Messiah is not older than the 8th cent. But (apart from the question
whether the subj. in ^^'' be Judah or the Messiah) the connexion between
ând ^^ is in any case not so obvious as to justify the removal of ^*^ and ;
the assumption that the figure of the Messiah is a creation of the

literary Prophets is based more on our ignorance of the early religious
conceptions of the Israelites than on positive evidence. (2) Accordingly,
Gu. (followed by Gressmann, Ursprung d. Isr.-Jiid. Eschatologie, 263)
finds in the passage proof of a pre-prophetic eschatology, which looked
forward to the advent of a Ruler who should found a world-empire,
the point of the oracle being that till that great event Judah's dominion
should not pass away. It is difficult, however, to believe that the
climax of a blessing on Judah is the expectation of a world-ruler who
takes the sceptre out of Judah's hands and though a reference to a ;
;

Messianic tradition is quite conceivable, it is probable that it is here
already applied to the Davidic monarchy. (3) It seems to me, therefore,
that justice is done to the terms and the tenor of the oracle if we regard
it as a prophecy of David and his dynasty, —
a vaticinium ex eventu, like
all the other oracles in the chapter. The meaning- would be that Judah
shall retain its tribal independence (see on ^*''^) against all adversaries
until its great hero makes it the centre of a powerful kingdom, and
imposes his sovereignty on the neighbouring peoples. As for the
enigmatic n'?''{5', we may, of course, adopt the reading iV, which is as
appropriate on this view as on the directly Messianic interpretation.
But if the oracle rests on an early eschatological tradition, it is just
possible that nW is a cryptic designation of the expected Ruler, which
was applied by the poet to the person of David. Bennett (p. 397) calls
attention to the resemblance with rhp in ch. 38 ; and it is a wonder that
those recognise mythical elements in the story of Judah and Tamar

who
have not thought of identifying the nW of our passage with Judah's
third son, of whose destiny the story leaves us in ignorance. Is it
possible that this connexion was in the minds of the Jewish authorities
{v.i.), who render nS'B' his youngest son' ? (see Posnanski, 36^).
*
II, 12. As usually understood, the vv. give a highly

coloured picture of Judaean life after the conquest, in a land
where vines are so common that they are used for tethering
the ass, and wine so abundant that garments are washed in
it. As a description of the vine-culture for which Judah was
famous, the hyperbole is perhaps extreme and Gressmann ;
[I.e. 287) takes the subject to be not the personified tribe,

but the Ruler of v.^^, the vv. being a prediction of the
ideal felicity to be introduced by his reign. Whether this
be the original sense of the passage or not is hard to decide
but Gr. is doubtless right in thinking that it supplied the
imagery for the well-known picture of the Messianic king in
Zee. 9^. — 12. ffiU take the adjs. as comparatives brighter :
*
than wine (v.i.) ... whiter than milk': but this is It
natural.
11. noK] with archaic case-ending : cf. '33 below, and perhaps '^'^3n
in w.'^K — '•iplB'] Sltt. \ey. =p-i.b'. Is. 5^, Jer. 2^^ fpT^, Is. 16^] probably from
;
the red colour of the best grapes. — nmo] nx. nmoD, 'covering' (Ex. 21^"
etc.). mo ( sj ?) does not occur elsewhere.
'"'IP
—
12. 'V'SDn] In Pr. 232^ m'?V?C
D'3'ymeans dulness of eyes,' the effect of excessive drinking. This is
'
the only sense justified by etymology (Ass. aMlu, be gloomy Ar. *

' ;
hakala, IV, be confused': see BDB, s.v. Ssn), and must be retained
*
here, although, of course, it does not imply reproach, any more than 138^
XLIX. II-I4 525
The section on Judah lacks the unity of the first two oracles, and is
very probably composed of strophes of diverse origin and date. V.**
opens with a play on the name, like vv.^^- ^^, while v.** starts afresh with
an animal comparison, like vv.^^- "• '' (see Introd. Note, p. 510). The
impression of discontinuity is partly confirmed by the poetic form v.* ;
being- an irregular tristich, and the remainder a series of 7 perfect

trimeter distichs. The dekastich '"''^ seems distinct from what precedes
(note the repetition of the name in ^"), but is itself a unity. The proposal
to remove v.^^ as a late Messianic interpolation, and to make v.^^ the con-
tinuation of v.^, does not commend itself and the excision of the third ;
line in v.^" (Meier, Fripp) merely avoids an exegetical difficulty by

sacrificing the strophic arrangement.
13-15. Zebulun and Issachar.

^^ Zebulun shall dwell by the shore of the sea,
And . . . shore of ships (?),
And his flank is on Zidon.
" Issacharis a bony ass
Crouching between the panniers (?) ;

^^ And he saw that rest was good.
And that the land was sweet ;
So he bent his shoulder to bear.

And became a labouring drudge.
13. shall dwell] An allusion to the etymology in 30^*^. It
is plausibly conjectured that f^'^-] has been substituted by

niistaK'^c.'/br the original
(Gu. al.). The second and
p'^T. —
and the text is probably corrupt.
third lines are unintelligible,
The comparison of Zebulun to a recumbent animal, with
*itself (^îiT!)
' towards the sea-coast, and its hind - parts
towards Zidon (Di. Gu. al.), is unsatisfying and almost
grotesque. Dt. 33^^^ shows that it is the advantageousness
of Zebulun's geographical position which is here celebrated.
— Zidon] may be a name for Phoenicia, in whose commercial
pursuits it has been surmised that Zebulun became more and
more involved (Sta. GF/, i. 171). 14. bony] i.e. strong- —
13. D'D" qin] Ju. 5" cf. D'n 'n, Dt. i'^, Jos. 9^, Jer. 47^, Ezk. 2^^\
;
never found with any other gen. except in the next line. 'iai Nim] One
f]in is
— :
is tempted to construe prosaically thus And ihai a shore for ships,

:
*
with its flank on Zidon ; but this would entail ehsion of h, to the
'
detriment of the rhythm besides, the repetition of fjin and the unique
:
combination n'3N 'n are suspicious. Ba. reads iM" for "înS (after Ju. 5^^),
and deletes the last line.— '?y] juu.©F<S^°-' ^y.— 14. D"iJ ion] xxx Dnj 'n, 'ass
—a '
limbed. Issachar had strength enough, but preferred ease

to exertion. — ^^^S'frsn] The common interpretation *
sheep-
pens '
has no appropriateness here, and may be a conjecture
based on Ju. 5^^. Equally unsuitable are the renderings of
the old Vns. (* boundaries,' etc.), and the * fire-places' or
*
ash-heaps which the Heb. etymology would suggest.
'
The form is dual, and one naturally thinks of the panniers '
carried by the ass {v.i.). —

15. nm:p] A technical term for
the settled, as contrasted with the nomadic, life (Gu.). a
labouring drudge] Lit. became a toiling labour-gang* cf. '
;
Jos. 16^^. DD is a levy raised under the system of forced

labour [corvee). That a Heb. tribe should submit to this
indignity was a shameful reversal of the normal relations
between Israel and the Canaanites (Jos. 16^^ lyi^j^^ ju. i28],
^^- ^^).
Ju. i^*^-
The two northern Leah-tribes found a settlement in Lower Galilee,

where they mingled with the Canaanite inhabitants. According- to Jos.
19^°"^^, Zebulun occupied the hills north cf the Great Plain, being cut off
from the sea both by Asher and by the strip of Phoenician coast. We
must therefore suppose that the tribal boundaries fluctuated greatly in
early times, and that at the date of the poem Zebulun had access at
some point to the sea. The almost identical description on Ju. 5^' is
considered by Gu. to have been transferred from Zebulun to Asher, —
view which, if it can be substantiated, affords a reliable criterion of the
relative dates of the two oracles. The district of Issachar seems to
have been between the Great Plain and the Jordan, including the Vale
—
of Jezreel, a position in which it was peculiarly difficult for a Hebrew
tribe to maintain its independence. The tribe is not even mentioned in
the survey of Ju. i, as if it had ceased to be part of Israel. Yet both it
and Zebulun had played a gallant part in the wars of the Judges (Ju.
^^6. 10 ^14. 18 535 ^15^ 'pjjg absence of any allusion to these exploits lends
colour to the view that this part of the poem is of older date than the
Song of Deborah.
of sojourners ' (unless D'lj be an adj. fr. mj). (& rb KoXhv iiredijfjLrjcrev
(=D13 non: Ginsb. Introd. p. 254); % \\ *^-^-ti Ir^^l' A^- ^"<^ ^

support on the whole MT.—D^nsron pa] Ju. 5^«t, but cf. Ps. 68^4. The
three pass, are somehow interrelated, although no sense will suit them
all. Vns. mostly render 'territories,' or something equivalent, both
here and in Ju. But the dLyo/xias of (& in Ju. (see Schleusner) is note-
worthy, and shows that the rendering above has some show of authority.
So the late Gr.-Ven. 7]iJ.L(p6pTLa. For the rest, see Moore on Ju. 5^^. — 15.
mo] jjut nmo. —nay ddS] (& dvrjp yeupyos (Ginsb. I.e.). —On dd, see DBD,
and Moore, Jud. p. 47.
—
XLIX. 15-18 527
16-21. Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.

^® Dan shall judge his people,
As one of the tribes of Israel.
*' Be Dan a serpent on the way,
A horned snake on the path,
That bites the hoofs of the horse,
And the rider tumbles backwards I
* [I wait for thy salvation, Yahwe !]
'^ Gad — raiders shall raid him,

But he shall raid their rear I
* Asher — his bread shall be fat,

And he shall yield dainties for kings.
** Naphtali is a branching terebinth (?)

Producing comely tops (?).
16. D&n . . . judge\ See on 30^. his people] Not Israel,

but his own tribesmen. The meaning- is not that Dan will
produce a judge (Samson) as well as the other tribes (JT*^^),
nor that he will champion the national cause (Ew. De. Di.
al.); but that he will successfully assert an equal status
with the other tribes. Note that in Ju. iS^- "• ^^ the Danites
are spoken of as a *
clan ' (nriEti'O). — 17. The little snake,
concealed by the wayside, may unhorse the rider as effectu-
ally as a fully armed antagonist : by such insidious, but
not ignoble, warfare Dan in spite of his weakness may
succeed. — |b''StJ^] air. Xcy. is probably the cerastes cornutus^
whose habits are here accurately described (see Dri., and
Tristram, NHB^ 274). — 18. An interpolation, marking (as
nearly as possible) the middle of the poem (so Ols. Ba.
Siev. al.). The attempts to defend its g-enuineness as a sigh
of exhaustion on Jacob's part, or an utterance of the nation's
dependence on Yahwe's help in such unequal conflicts as
those predicted for Dan, are Dan was one of the inept. —
weakest of the tribes, and perhaps the latest to secure a
permanent settlement (Ju. i^^*-, Jos. 19*^, Ju. 18). Its
migration northward, and conquest of Laish, must have
17. JE'SB'] ffi^ ivKadrj/xevos, taking the liir. "Key. as an adj. — '?£3'i] Ba. *!>sn
(after 5 IIDjID).
— —;
taken place early in what is known as the Judges' period

and is apparently presupposed here and in Ju. 5^'^. — 19.
Strictly :
'
A marauding band shall attack him, but he shall
attack their heel' (rdg. ^npy, v.i.); i.e., press upon them in
their flight. The marauders are the warlike peoples to the

E, specially the Ammonites (i Ch. 5^^^-, Ju. 10 f.), who at a
later time dispossessed the tribe (Jer. 49^). As yet, however,
Gad maintains its martial character (cf. i Ch. i2^~^^), and
more than holds its own. 20. Asher settled in the fertile—
strip along the coast, N of Carmel. The name occurs as a
designation of Western Galilee in Eg. inscrs. of the time of
Seti and Ramses 11. (see Miiller, AE, 236 ff. ).—;/"«/] Probably
an allusion to the oil (Dt. 33^*) for which the region was,
and still is, famous. royal dainties\ fit for the tables of
Phoenician kings (cf. Ezk. 27^^). 21. The verse on Naphtali —
is ambiguous. Instead of i^^'^, 'hind,' many moderns read
n7"'X ('a spreading terebinth'). The following cl. 'giving :
fair speeches,' suits neither image; on the one view it is

proposed to read yielding goodly lambs '
C"!'?^?),
on the other '
* producing goodly shoots '

(^?.^^?). No certain conclusion
can be arrived at.
19. -la] The name is here (otherwise than 30^^) connected with nnj,
*band''(i Sa. 308- '«-23, i Ki. ii^^ 2 Ki. 52 623 gt^.), and with i", V
•assail' (Hab. 3^^, Ps. 942^). —
3py] Rd. D3py, taking the D from the
beginning of x."^. —
20. hb-kd] Read with T>rN. ©SU
njCK'] ux JDK'. —
21. nn'^r nS^x] So Aq. (Jer. Qu.). U
& and ^TJ probably had the same
text, but render 'a swift messenger.' On Jerome's ager irriguus {Qu.)
and its Rabbinical parallels, see Rahmer, Die hebr. Traditionen den m
Werken des Hier. p. 55. (& crfKexos seems to imply n^'N but Ba. ;
dissents. —jnan] After either rh\i< or n^'x, hj^j would be better. '"ipx] —
'words,' is unsuitable, and caused S^ and (ZP to change the metaphor
to that of a messenger. An allusion to the eloquence of the tribe is
out of place in the connexion. The reading noN, topmost boughs,' '
has but doubtful support in Is. 17" (see the comm.). ^^N, lamb,' is *
not Heb., but is found in Ass. Phoen. Aram, and Ar. fflr iv t(^ yev^/xari
is traced by Ba. to 'I??; but? "i??^] air. Xey.
— —
Ba. argues ingeniously,
but unconvincingly, that rrS;N belongs to v.^^, and that the ma of that v.
stood originally in î. His amended text reads :
nt)hv n^s ''?risj Naphtali ts a branching vine,

-|t3t5» n5 njnin That yieldeth comely fruit.
——
XLIX. 19—22 229

22-26. Joseph.
22 A fruitful bough (?) is Joseph—
A fruitful bough by a well (?).
'•And . . . dealt bitterly with him,

And the archers harassed him sorely,
** Yet his bow abode unmoved,
And nimble were the arms of his hands.
Through the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob,
Through the '"name'^ of the Shepherd of the Israel-Stone,
" Through thy father's God may he help thee — !
And El Shaddai he bless thee — may !
Blessings of heaven above,

Blessings of T6h6m beneath, •" ''
Blessings of breast and womb,

« Blessings of (?), . . .
Blessings of the eternal '"mountains'',

''Produce'' of the everlasting hills
Be on the head of Joseph, ,
And on the crown of the consecrated one of his brethren.
The section is full of obscurities, and the text frequently quite un-
translatable. Its integrity has naturally not passed unquestioned.
We may distinguish four stages in the unfolding of the theme (i) The :
opening tristich (22), celebrating (as far as can be made out) the populous-
ness and prosperity of the central double-tribe. (2) Joseph's contest

with the * archers (^s- 24a)^ (3) A fourfold invocation of the Deity (24b
'
(4) The blessing proper

2«*a^). (25«7Sb. 26)^
^^îch closely resembles the
corresponding part of the Blessing of Moses (Dt. 33^^"^^), the two being
probably variants of a common original. Meyer {/NS, 282 ff.) accepts
(1), (2), and (4) as genuine, but rejects (3) as a later addition, which has
displaced the original transition from the conflict to the blessing. Fripp
{ZATW, xxi. 262 ff.) would remove (3) and (4) (24^-26)^ ^îch he holds to
have been mserted by an Ephraimite editor from Dt. 33 Ho. seems in :
the main to agree. Sievers also (II. 362) questions the genuineness of
24b-26 Qjj metrical grounds. But we may admit the northern origin of
some of the vv., and the resemblance to Dt. 23t and even a difference
of metre, and still hold that the whole belongs to the earliest literary
recension of the Song to which we have access. The warm enthusiasm
of the eulogy, and the generous recognition of Joseph's services to the
national cause, are no doubt remarkable in a Judsean document but ;
such a tone is not unintelligible in the time of David, when the unity of
the empire had to be maintained by a friendly and conciliatory attitude
to the high-spirited central tribes.
22. On the ordinary but highly questionable rendering",
22. ms p] |3 is const, st. the rhythmic accent forbids the usual

:
shortening of the vowel with Maqqeph ("J|). /tie] Contracted from nns,
34
—— — :
the image is that of a young- thriving vine planted by a

fountain and thus well supplied with water, whose tendrils
extend over the wall. A young fruit-
a fruitful bough\ Or '
tree lit.'
son of a fruitful [tree or
:
' vine ']. There is '
'
probably an etymological allusion to Ephraim (ms = n'^2fc<

—
We.). 23, 24. The figure is abruptly changed: Joseph is
now represented as beset by troops of archers, whose attack
he repels. dealt bitterly —.] The following word ^211 re- . .
quires some amendment of text [y.i.). 24. abode unmoved^ —

or constant.' Taken with the next line, this suggests a
*
fine picture ; the bow held steadily in position, while the

hand that discharges the arrows in quick succession moves
nimbly to and fro (Gu.). The expressions, however, are
peculiar, and a diff"erent reading of the second line given in
'fruitful' (Is. 17® 32^^ Ezk. 19^°, Ps. 128^), or nns, with archaic feqj.
termination, .tins, * boug-h ' (Ezk. 17** 31^- '^), might be thought of, but
would be hardly suitable as gen. after p.— Down to J'j;
the Vns. have
substantially the same text. "xw "hv mys m33] defies explanation. Lit.
filia discurrerunt super murum (U). But ni:3

= 'tendrils,' has no analogy;
nys means 'march' or 'stride,' but not 'extend'; and the discord of
number is harsh (notwithstanding G-K. § 145^). The Vns. reveal
early corruption of the text, without suggesting anything better. © vlb<i
/J.OV j/ewTttTos (= Au. 'T]}^ 'iljirpbs (xk dvaa-Tpexpov (= 2W 'hlf). & ] 1 >,„.T^
l^
n m o .r>\rr) ^ j'-^ » Vo m (? ^w nhi'n lyô |;;3). —Zimmern's zodiacal
theory, which identifies Joseph with the sign Taurus, finds two tempting-
points of contact in the consonantal text: reading n-js = rris, 'juvenca,'
at the beginning, and lie', * ox,' at the end. But the reconstruction of
the text on these lines, with the help of Dt. 33" (see ZA, vii. 164!?.;
ATLO^y 399), has no title to respect: against it see Ba. p. 116. 23. —
531)] From ^J 231, a by-form of n3i,* 'shoot,' with intrans. pf. (G-K.
§ 67 m). The simple pf. between two consec. impfs. being suspicious,
the least change demanded is isVi. juxffi {i\oibbpovv) and U {jurgati
sunt) read 'n3n:i, 'strove with him.' Parallelism suggests a noun

as subj. to 'd:i ; we might read D'3l, '
bowmen ' (Jer. so"-'*), or (since
the line is too short) na'j? '31 (2120). 24a. ffi koI cvverplSr} ixera Kpd-
Tovs rd rbâ avrCov [ = Q9¥'p IC'Î iSB^ni].— 3^1] ^ An^CH = 2y^^\. The
sense 'abide' for 3B'' is justified by Lv. I2^ i Ki. 22^ Ps. 125^
and nothing is gained by departing from MT. — in'«3] Lit. 'as a
permanent one (3 essentice). iiS'i] 2
' Sa. G^\. — (&. koX iêXvdij, S^
OJfî.'jO may represent niS'i (see Ba.).—[ffi Di;] vt 'yni] is a hard
* But see above on 21^.

— — ——
XLIX. 23-26 531
some Vns. is approved by several scholars (v.i.). — Strojig

One of Jacob] A poetic title of Yahwe, recurring- Is. 49^^
6ol^ Ps. 1322-^, and (v^îth Israel for Jacob) Is. i^*. See,
further, the footnote below. Through the name] CK^, the
reading of S and 5I^°, though not entirely satisfactory, is at
least preferable to the meaningless DK'p of MT. the Shepherd
of the Israel-Stone] A second designation of Yahwe as the
Guardian of the Stone of Israel, either the sacred stone of —
Bethel, or (better) that of Shechem (Jos. 2426*), which was
the religious rendezvous of the tribes in early times (see
p. 416): so Luther, INS, 284^. Both text and tnmslation
are, however, uncertain (v.i.). —25, 26. The construction is
ambiguous : it is not clear whether the lines beginning with

Blessings are a series of accusatives depending on the ^5'^P'''!
Qf 25a (*
may he bless thee with blessings,' etc.), or subjects
to ripp in 2^^. The second view is adopted above ; but the
ambiguity may be an intentional refinement. —25aap. 'El
Shaddai] For the reading, v.i. ; and see on —25aY8b,
17^.
combination, but perhaps not too bold. 24b. "iâijl] occurs only in the
pass, cited above. It is reasonably suspected that the Mass. changed
the punctuation to avoid association of ideas with "rax, 'bull,' the

idolatrous of Yahwe in N Israel.
emblem Whether the name as
applied to Yahwe
be really a survival of the bull-worship of Bethel and
Dan is another question ; T3X (strong-) is an epithet of men (Ju. 5",
8i«
Jb. 2422 3420, Je. 4615, J sa. 218 etc.), and horses (Jer. 47^ 50") much
more often than of bulls (Ps. 22^^ 68^^ 50^^ Is. 34''), and might have
been transferred to Yahwe in its adj. sense. On the other hand, the
parallelism with Stone of Israel in the next line favours the idea that
'
'
the title is derived from the cult of the Bull at Bethel, which may have
had a more ancient significance than an image of Yahwe (cf. Mey. INS,
282 ff.; Luther, ZATW, xxi. 70 fF.). The further inference (No. Lut.
Mey.) that Jacob was the deity originally worshipped in the bull is
perhaps too adventurous. D^p] So fflcU but ^W^ D;^'p. — ; pN] Cf.
'7nib''
V m^f, also -\]VJ) '«, i Sa. 4^ 5^ 7^2^

2 Sa. 23', Is. 3o2» ; The translation above
agrees with & MT
puts rtin in apposition with '' 'k (so TB) <& Keldeu
; ;
6 /caxKTXiô'as'Io'p. omits pN, and may have read ill! (Ba.). The line is too
long for the metre, but px is the one word that should noi be omitted.
—25. 13"i3'i . . . Tiiy'1] Cf. Ps. 69=^, and see Ew. § 347 a. — -nxi] Read
with xxx(S[ (6 debs 6 ifids), S> î<] : though 'ê* alone (Nu. 24^- ^^) would be
suitable in an ancient poem. —
n5i3n] Metrically necessary in Dt. .33^^, but
here redundant ; probably, therefore, a gloss from the other recension

(Siev.). — 26. '"ly nin nana-^y naa T2i<] There are two stages of corruption,
— —— ——
26a. The blessings, arranged in three parallel couplets, the

first Blessings of heaven
referring to the fertility of the soil.
above] Rain and dew, the cause of fertility (so Dt. 33^^ em.).
— Tehdm . . . beneath] The subterranean flood, whence
springs and rivers are fed : see on i^. Blessings of breasts
and womb] Contr. the terrible imprecation, Hos. 9^*. 26a.
Passing over the first four words as absolutely unintelligible
{v.i.)y we come to the third pair of blessings : ... of the
eternal mountains , , . of the everlasting hills (Dt. 33^^,
Hab. 3^)] In what sense the mountains were conceived as

a source of blessing is not clear, —perhaps as abodes of
deity; cf. Hermon (Ps. 133^). The word
the * dew of ' —
r&ndevQd prodzice \s uncertain; we should expect 'blessings,*
as ^
actually reads {v.i.). 26b. Be on the head] as in —
benediction the hand is laid on the head (48^*) : cf. Pr. 10®
ii26^_VnN TT3] So Dt. 33^6^ The "i'T3 is either the Nazirite
—one *
consecrated ' to God by a vow involving unshorn
hair (Ju. 13^- '^
etc.) —or the prince (so only La. 4^). For the
rendering *
crowned one ' there are no examples. The
second interpretation is that usually adopted by recent
scholars ; some explaining it of the Northern monarchy, of
one remediable, the other not. The last line is to be restored with
€r î^ 'lin n^na, '
blessings of the eternal mountains ' (Dt. 33^^, Hab. 3^).
But the three words, though represented by all Vns., must be

first
wrong for to put nana under the regimen of '?i; destroys the parallelism,
;
and the vb. naa cuts off p'nn from its subj. What is obviously required
is a line parallel to Dmi ontJ' r\zra. Gu.'s suggested emendation, though
far from satisfying, is the best that can be proposed ^yj 133 3« n3n3 = : M
'Blessings of father, yea, man and child.' T3N*] jua© + ioni, suggested
no doubt by the previous line. mn] U^C'^J render my progenitors,' — *
by an impossible derivation from a^ be pregnant.' rnxn] EV '"''^'^j * —

'utmost bound' (so De., fr. nxn or mn see BDB), has no real philo- ^ ;
logical or traditional justification. If the text were reliable, it might be

the common word desire,' from ^J niN (ffi '-""'5- EH^T^^), in the sense of
*
'desirable things.' With some hesitation I follow above Ols. Gu. al.,
reading DNun after Dt. 33^^ But (R^ n^na has great weight (all the
greater that the translator has lost the thread of the thought), and ought
perhaps to be preferred. Tu] is not necessarily a derivative from the—
noun 1U, diadem,' = the crowned one'; more probably it comes from
*
'
—
the vb. directly, nu = ' dedicate (cf. mj) which admits various shades '
—
of meaning. Of the Vns. fflr^P represent the idea of prince or ruler, '
'
*
Siô the separated one,'

<
Saad. the Nazirite,' 5- the crown (\u). U * * '
XLix. 26, 27 533
which the Joseph-tribes were the chief part though others ;
think it merely ascribes to Joseph a position of princely

superiority to his brethren. The other view is taken by
Sellin (Beitr, ii. i, 132 ff.) and Gu., who conceive the ancient
Nazirite as a man like Samson, dedicated to single-handed
warfare against the foes of Israel(cf. Schw. Kriegsalter-
thuvier, and hold that Joseph is so designated as

10 1 ff.),
being the foremost champion of the national cause. The

interpretation is certainly plausible ; but it derives no support
from the word 1p"|iJ
(||Kî<"i), which is never used in connexion
with the Nazirite, and is quite common in other connexions
(see Dt. 3320).
The many scholars (see We. Comp.^

opinion confidently entertained by
Joseph presupposes the divided king-dom, rests
321), that the Blessing- of
partly on this expression, and partly on the allusion to an arduous
struggle in ^'•. But it is clear that neither indication is at all decisive.
If TU could mean only crowned one,' we should no doubt find ourselves
*
in the time of the dual monarchy. In point of fact, it never denotes the
king, and only once princes and we have no right to deny that its
'
' ;
import is adequately explained by the leadership which fell to the house

of Joseph in the conquest of Canaan (Ju. i^^ff.^^
'
Similarly, the archers '
of v.^ might be the Aramaeans of Damascus, in which case Joseph would

be a name for the Northern kingdom as a whole but they may as well ;
be the Midianites (Ju. 6ff.) or other marauders who attacked central

Israel between the settlement and the founding of the monarchy, and
whose repeated and irritating incursions would admirably suit the terms
of the description. The general considerations which plead for an early
date are (i) The analogy of the rest of the poem, some parts of which
:
are earlier, and none demonstrably later, than the age of David or
Solomon. (2) The incorporation of the blessing in a Judaean work is
improbable at a time when Israel was a rival kingdom. (3) Although
Joseph sometimes stands for the Northern kingdom, it can hardly do so
here in an enumeration of the tribes. Consequently it takes us back to
the time when Joseph was still a single tribe, or when at least the
separation of Ephraim and Manasseh was not clearly recognised the :
addition in Dt. 33"'' is instructive in this regard (see Gu., and Sellin,
l.c, 134).
27. Benjamin.
^ Benjamin is a ravening- wolf:
In the morning he devours the prey.
And at eve divides the spoil.
27. Iia' 3Ni] Descriptive impf., see Dav. § 44,^. 3, § 142. On pausaJ
a, see G-K. § 29 w.—ny] = booty,' *
Is. 33^3, Zeph. 3^ [? Is. 9^] ; ffi ^rt.
—
Benjamin is praised for its predatory instincts, and its
unflagging" zest for war. The early history contains a good

deal to justify the comparison : its fight with Moab (Ju.
3^^^-), its share in the struggle with the Canaanites (Ju. 5^*),
its desperate stand against united Israel (Ju. 19 f.); it was

famous for its skill in slinging and archery (Ju. 20^^, i Ch.
8^^ 12^, 2 Ch. i^
But a special reference to the short-
17^^)'
lived reign of Saul is probable the dividing of spoil reminds :
us of the king who clothed the daughters of Israel with

scarlet and ornaments (2 Sa. i-*). The contrast between —
this description and the conception of Benjamin in the
Joseph-stories is an instructive example of how tribal
characteristics were obscured in the biographical types
evolved by the popular imagination.
28aba (to DiT3X) is the subscription to the poem ; the re-
mainder of the V. belongs to P, and probably continued ^^ in
that source. number] The
the tribes of Israel, twelve in
division into 12 tribes is an artificial scheme, whose origin
is uncertain (see Luther, ZATW, xxi. 33 ff. Peters, Early ;
Heb. Story, 55 ff-)- ^^ obtained also amongst the Edomites,

Ishmaelites, and other peoples and in Israel betrays its ;
theoretic character by the different ways in which the number

was made up, of which the oldest is probably that followed
in the Song of Jacob. In Dt. 33, Simeon is omitted, and
Joseph divided into Ephraim and Manasseh in P (Nu. 2) ;
Joseph is again divided, to the exclusion not of Simeon, but

of Levi.
The recently revived theory of a connexion between the original

sayings of the Blessing and the signs of the Zodiac calls for a brief
notice at this point. The most striking correspondences were set forth
by Zimmern in ZA, vii. (1892), 161 fF. viz., Simeon and Levi = Gemini ;
(see p. 517) Judah = Leo, with the king-star Regulus on its breast (p3
;
rSjn) and Joseph = Taurus. This last comparison, it is true, rests on

;
Dt. 33 rather than Gn. 49, and is only imported into this passage by a
violent reconstruction of v.^^ (p. 530). Other possible combinations
mentioned by Zimmern are Issachar = Aselli (in Cancer), Dan = Serpens
(N of Libra), Benjamin = Lupus (S of Scorpio), and Naphtali = Aries
28. '?NnB'' 't2DK'] ffi v\qX 'laKiip.

— '? ntS'N C'n] Such a construction is
impossible. We must either omit the rel. (Vns.) or read b-'n «?'« (Ols.
De. KS. Gu. ah).
—
XLIX. 28-L. 26
535
(reading h^H for nJ>;K). Stucken (MVAG, 1902, 166 ff.), after a laboured
proof that Reuben corresponds to Behemoth (hippopotamus), an old
constellation now represented by Aquarius, completed the circle after a
fashion, with the necessary addition of Dinah = Virg-o as the missing
sigti; and his results are adopted by Jeremias (ATLO^, 395 ff.). A
somewhat different arrangement is given by Winckler in AOF, iii. 465 ff.
These conjectures, however, add little to the evidence for the theory,
which must in the main be judged by the seven coincidences pointed out
in Zimmern's article. That these amount to a demonstration of the
theory cannot be affirmed but they seem to me to go far to show that
;
it contains an element of truth. It is hardly accidental that in each series

we have one double sign (Gemini, Simeon-Levi) and one female personi-
fication (Virgo, Dinah), and that all the animal names occurring in the
Song (lion, ass, serpent, ram ?, ox ?, wolf) can be more or less plausibly
identified with constellations either in the Zodiac or sufficiently near it to
have been counted as Zodiacal signs in early times. The incompleteness
of the correspondence is fairly explained by two facts first, that the
:
poem has undergone many changes in the course of its transmission,

and no longer preserves the original form and order of the oracles and ;
second, that while the twelve-fold division of the ecliptic goes back to
the remotest antiquity, the traditional names of the twelve signs cannot
all be traced to the ancient Babylonian astronomy. It may be added
that there is no prima facie objection to combinations of this sort. The
theory does not mean that the sons of Jacob are the earthly counterparts
of the Zodiacal constellations, and nothing more. All that is implied is
that an attempt was made to discover points of resemblance between the
fortunes and characteristics of the twelve tribes on the one hand, and
the astro-mythological system on the other. Such combinations were
necessarily arbitrary, and it might readily happen that some were too
unreal to live in the popular memory. Where the correspondence is

plausible, we may expect to find that the characterisation of the tribe
has been partly accommodated to the conceptions suggested by the
comparison and great caution will have to be observed in separating
;
the bare historical facts from the mythological allusions with which they
are embellished. In the present state of the question, it may be safely
said that the historical interpretation must take precedence. The
Zodiacal theory will have to be reckoned with in the interpretation of
the Song but it has as yet furnished no trustworthy ckie either to the
;
explanation of obscure details, or to the restoration of the text.
XLIX. 28b-L. 26. The Death and Burial ofJacob ;

and the Death ofJoseph (P, J, E).
Jacob charg-es his sons to bury him in the family sepulchre

at Machpelah, and expires (28b-33j^ Joseph causes the body
to be embalmed and, accompanied by his brethren and an
;
imposing cortege^ conveys it to its last resting-place in

— — :
536 BURIAL OF JACOB (jE, p)
Canaan (50^"^*). He pacifies and reassures his brethren,

who fear his vengeance now that their father is gone (^^-î)^
He dies in a good old age, after exacting an oath that his
bones shall be carried up from Egypt when the time of
deliverance comes (22-26j^
Sources.—4g^^^P-^^ belongs to P, with the possible exceptions of '^ (a

g-loss), and the clause "^''P ; note the reference to ch. 23 and the identical
phraseology of the two passages also the expressions yu, nrnx, fpm
;
VDy-'7N (bis). — In ch. 50, vv.^^. 13 ^re from P (Machpelah,

etc. note also :
that the suff. in V33 refers back to 49^^). are mainly J ('?s<n55", ^
Vv.^-"- ^*
;
'ya jn h^d,
*
; ftya, ^ ; 'jyjDn, ^^ : note the reference [^^'J to Joseph's oath
^5-26
E i9- 24. 25 1,31,3^ 21 ^^^n ^yi2-j ,jj^ ^^^^^^ n^^.^^ 19
[4729-31]) ; and (q^hSn, '''o- . .
[3o2]i:the resemblance to 45'- ' and the backward reference in Ex. 13^^, ;
Jos. 24^2). The analysis might stop here (Di. We. Dri. al.) but a ;
variant in ^^ {^^^ ^^'^fi), and the double name of the place of burial suggest
II
that theremay be two accounts of the funeral (see KS. An. 242). Ho.
Gu. Pro., however, seem to me to go too far in the attempt to establish
a material difference of representation {e.g.^ that in E's account Joseph's
brethren did not go up with him to the burial). Traces of J in ^^"^ are
equally insignificant (see the notes).
28b-33. Jacob's charge to his sons. 28bP. The —

sequel to ^^ in P. Note the close formal parallel to 28^ (P)
And . . . called and blessed
. . .and charged and . . . . . .
said . . . each with a special blessing] v.i. 29, 30* See on —

ch. 23. — 31. Abraham and Sarah his wife] 25^ 23^^. The
burying-place of Isaac (35"^^) is not elsewhere specified ; and
the burials of Rebekah and Leah are not recorded at all.
On the possibility that the notice of Rachel's burial (48^)

stood here originally, see p. 504 f. —32. Probably a gloss
(^y,z,y —
drew up his feet into the
33. bed] The clause may
have been inserted from J cf. 48^^. ; — As the case of in all
the patriarchs except Joseph, the actual account of the death

is left to P.
L. 1-14. The burial of Jacob. — i. The forms in which
29. DniN (& om. is'i]

—
'J?y"'?N] Read '»«-'?« (cf. ^^) see on 25^ 30. For :
—
'nn ©
has simply nSsDDa, and for the following niz'n, mvDn. 31.
n-isj-D, —
'map] (& nn,7^. —
At the end of the v. Bu. would add hn-\-m^ as P's original
statement (ZATW, iii. 82).—32. The v. has no syntactic connexion with
the preceding, the construction is cumbrous in the extreme, and the
notice superfluous after
ôb.
It should probably be deleted as a marginal
variant to ''"^
(so De. Gu. ).—njpo] <&'a2.
— —
XLIX. 28-L. 9 537
Joseph's grief expressed itself were doubtless conventional,

though they are not elsewhere alluded to in OT. 2. The —
Egyptian practice of embalming originated in ideas with
which the Hebrew mind had no sympathy, the belief that —
the ka or ghostly double of the man might at any time re-
turn to take possession of the body, which consequently had
at all costs to be preserved (Erman, LAE^ 307). In the cases
of Jacob and Joseph (v.^^), merely an expedient for pre-
it is
serving the body till the burial could take place. On the
various methods employed, see Herod, ii. 86-88; Diod. i. 91 ;
and Budge, The Mummy^ 160 ff., 177 ff. the physicians^ In
Egypt the embalmers formed a special profession. 3. forty —
days .y^7;^«/i' «fej'^] The process of embalming occupied,
. . .
according to Diod., over 30 days, according to Herod., 70

days exact data from the monuments are not yet available
;
(Erman, 315, 319 f. Budge, 179). The mourning for Aaron

;
and Moses lasted 30 days (Nu. 20^^, Dt. 34^) the Egyp- ;
tians(who are here expressly mentioned) are said to have

mourned for a king 72 days (Diod. i. 72). 4-6. Joseph —
seeks Pharaoh's permission to absent himself from Egypt.
Why he needed the court to intercede for him in such a
matter does not appear. —5a. Cf. \'^'^'^^'. —have digged] The
rendering *have purchased' is possible, but much less
probable (cf. 2 Ch. 16^*). The confused notice Ac. 7^^ might
suggest a tradition that Jacob's grave was in the plot of
ground he bought near Shechem (33^^ E), which is the view
maintained by Bruston (ZATW, vii. 202 ff.). On any view
the contradiction to 47^^ remains. —7-9. The funeral pro-
cession is described with empressement as a mark of the
almost royal honours bestowed on the patriarch. Such pro-
cessions are frequently depicted on Egyptian tombs Erman,
:
2. tiJn] v.2^, Apparently a Semitic ^/, meaning- in Arab. be-

Ca. 2^^t'
*
come mature,' applied Heb. Aram, and Arab, to the process of em-
in
balming-. —
3. D'Bin] 6jr. Xey. abstr. pi, = embalming.'
; 4. in'D3] The
*
—
fem. only here, for '33. The suff. prob. gen. obj. (weeping/or Jacob).
—
Nman] Add with dSc 'hi!. 5. -iH'icn] xu.(&^' ^^- + 'nic »3sS.— no ojn njn] om. ^
The phrase occurs in E 48"^', and (without nn) 50H— 'nns] (ErFS^J have '
digged'; & 'have purchased,' ST^ mp];iN = have prepared.' The first '
sense preponderates in usage (the second, Dt. 2^, Hos. 3^, Jb. 6^40*'t),
— —
538 BURIAL OF JACOB (jE, p)
320 f. Ball, Light from the East 119 f. horsemen^ however,

; ^
—
never appear in them: '*We have no representations of
Egyptians on horseback and were it not for a few literary
;
allusions, we should not know that the subjects of the

Pharaoh knew how to ride" (Erman, LAE^ 492 f.). 10, II. —
The mourningf at the grave. Goren ha-Atdd] the threshing- '
floor of the bramble'; the locality is unknown (v.t.). II. —

Abel Mi^razm] one of several place-names compounded with
bx = meadow' (Nu. 22^^> J", n^^ 2 Sa. 20!^, 2 Ch. 16*);
'
here interpreted as •^HVP ^^^y mourning of Egypt.' The '
real name meadow of Egypt may have commemorated

'
'
some incident of the Egyptian occupation of Palestine ; but

the situation is unknown. —The record of the actual burying
in J and E has not been preserved.
say whether Goren ha-Atad and Ahel Mizraim are

It is difficult to
two two names for one place. Jerome {OS, 85^^*^)
different places, or
identifies the former with Bethagla {= Ain Hagla, or Kasr Hagl^, S of
Jericho [Buhl, GP., 180]), but on what authority we do not know. The
conjecture that it was in the neighbourhood of Rachel's grave depends
entirely on a dubious interpretation of 48'^. Since there appears to be a
doublet in v.^° (10^/3 i"bj^ jg jâtural to suppose that one name belongs
II j^.
to J and the other to E, and therefore there is no great presumption that

the locaUties are identical ('nh 'j3 in " may be a gloss). According to
the present text, both were E of the Jordan (^"* ^^^) but such a state- ;
ment if found in one document would readily be transferred by a re-

dactor to the other and all we can be reasonably confident of is that
;
one or other was across the Jordan, for it is almost inconceivable that
yyyr^ 'ya 'n should be an interpolation in both cases. Since it is to be as-
sumed that in J and E the place of mourning was also the place of
burial,and since the theory of a ditour round the Dead Sea and the E
of Jordan to arrive at any spot in W. Palestine is too extravagant to
have arisen from a fanciful etymology, it would seem to follow that,
according to at least one tradition, Jacob's grave was shown at some
now unknown place E of the Jordan (Meyer, INS, 280 f.). Meyer's in-
ference that Jacob was originally a transjordanic hero, is, however, a
doubtful one for the East is dotted with graves of historic personages
;
in impossible places, and we have no assurance that tradition was more

reUable in ancient times.
and is here to be preferred. 'dntin] juu. + 'iyneri nrND. — 10. laN] The word
for * bramble Jotham's parable from Gerizim, Ju. g"** (only Ps. 58^*^
' in
again). Can there be an allusion to the threshing-floor of this passage
at Shechem? —
II. noxn 'J3] Possibly a gloss from v.^°. If so, noc [mx
ids:'), referring to pj (whose gender is uncertain), must have been substi-
— — ——
L. IO-22 539
12, 13. The account of the actual burial (from P). — It is
significant that here the Egyptians take no part in the ob-

sequies the final redactor may have assumed that they
:
were left behind at the mourning place E of the Jordan.

See further on 4929^-.— 14 (J). The return to Egypt.
15-21. Joseph removes his brethren's fears. — The
vv. contain a variation of the theme of 45^^* (Gu.), as if to
emphasize the lesson of the whole story, that out of a base

intent God brought good to His people. 15. saw] i.e. —
' realised,' —
took in the full significance of the fact (cf. 30^).
If it were meant that they * learned ' for the first time that
their father was dead, the inference would surely be not
merely that the brethren had not been present at the funeral
(Gu.), but that E had not recorded it at all. — 16, 17. They
send a message to Joseph, recalling a dying request of their
father (not elsewhere mentioned). the servants of the
God of thy father] Religion is a stronger plea than even
kinship (Gu.). — 18. Cf. 44^^. The v. may have been inserted
from J {y,i.), — 19. am 1 in God's stead?] (30^) : to judge and
punish at my pleasure. —20. Cf. 45^- '^- ^. —21. The continu-
ance of the famine seems presupposed, in opposition to the
chronology of P (47^^).
22-26. Joseph's old age and death. —22. a hundred and

ten years] Cf. Jos. 24^*. It is hardly a mere coincidence, but
tuted for mpon uv (so UIP, Gu.)- — 12. i*? VJ3] The suff. find no suitable
antecedents nearer than 49*^, the last excerpt from P. di:^ ncwa] ^b. ai.
Koi ida\l/av airhv iKci. —
13. mis'] (& rb <nrrj\aiovy and so again for rnarfriN.
14. V3N —nnN] ffiom.
15. '1J1 1"?] Cond. sent, with suppressed apodosis, G-K. § 159J)/. 16. —
lis'i] ffir Koi irapey^vovTO, and
QJDiJOO, seem to have read itran, which if
.S
correct would make the excision of v.^^ from E almost imperative (see
on the v.). But the sense of njit, *to commission,' is justified by Ex. 6^^,
Jer. 2'j*, Est. 3^* etc. and va would not properly be followed by nDX*?.
;
—17. Kjx] a strong- particle of entreaty; in Pent, only Ex. 32'!, 18. —
vjeV —
Dj] i& om. —
For la^'i, Ba. (after Vatke) reads i33'i, which would give
point to the following DJ. But the change is not necessary oS'i would :
mean they went away only if they had previously been present. That
*
'
certainly seems implied in "'' (apart from the reading of (Q:^ in ^^) and ;
hence there is much to be said for assigning v.^^ to J (Di. Ho. Pro.).
19b. (& reads Toi; yap deov iyu el/xl. 20. D'n'?^] ah 'xm —
ffi^F also have :
the copula. —21. nnyi] (& elwep 8^ avroTs. — 22. n'3i] ffir Kai oi dSt\<pol avTov
— —
540 DEATH OF JOSEPH (e)
rather an instance of the Egyptian affinities of the narrative,

that no is at least three times spoken of as an ideal
years
lifetime in Egyptian writings (Stern, Z. Ae^. Spr.y 1873, 75 f.).
— 23. Joseph lived to see his great-grandchildren by both
his sons, —another token of a life crowned with blessing (Ps.
128^, Pr. The expressions used of Ephraim's
13^2 j^6 etc.).
descendants are somewhat difficult {y.i.). Makir\ the most —

powerful clan of Manasseh, in the Song of Deborah (Ju. 5^^)
numbered among the tribes of Israel, and possibly therefore
an older unit than Manasseh itself (see Meyer, INSy 507,
—
516 f.). The expression horn on Joseph's knees implies the
adoption of Machir's sons by Joseph (see on 30^), though the
action does not seem to have any tribal significance. 24, —
25. Joseph predicts the Exodus (as did Jacob, 48^^), and
directs his bones to be carried to Canaan. For the fulfil-
ment of the wish, see Ex. 13^^, Jos. 24^^. his brethren are
here the Israelites as The de*ath of
a whole (v.^^). —26.
Joseph. in mummy-case, the wooden inner shell,
a coffin\ or
shaped like the mummy, which was placed in the stone
sarcophagus (see Erman, LAE^ 315 f- Ball, Light from the I
East, 121). A mythological allusion to the ' coffin '

of Osiris
(Volter, 55) is not to be thought of.
''This 'coffin in Egypt,'" remarks Delitzsch, **Is the

coffin of all Israel's spiritual satisfaction in Egypt." Gu.
shows sounder judgement and truer insight when he bids us
admire the restful close of the narrative, and the forward
glance to the eventful story of the Exodus.
KoX traaa. i] iravoiKia. — 23. O'&hvf '33] xxx V D':3 : so dSc^tH^K Dt'pb' means
*
great-grandchildren (Ex. 34'') hence'
'33 ought ; V to mean * great-
great-grandchildren (not, of course, of Ephraim,
'
but of Joseph in
Ephraim's line). But there being no reason why the descent should be
carried further in the line of Ephraim than in that of Manasseh, we
must understand *
g-reat-grandchildren,' whether we read with xxx, or
takeV '33as appositional gen. (see Di.).— '3n3-'?y] au 'D'3, in the days of,' '
— 'a bad correction' (Ba.), supported by no other Vn, 24. j;3K'3] ffi-f-6 —
debs Tois iraTpdcnv i]/xQv. —
25 end. Add with H^'b. MSS jjaffi^H D3^K|
—
'with you.' 26. DB"'!] ;uu. B'Vi. See on 24^.
INDEXES.
I. ENGLISH.
Abel, 103 ff. 'Akkad, 210.
'Abel Mizraim, 53S. 'Almodad, 221.
•Abida, 351. 'Amalek, 263, 431.
'Abima el, 221. Amorite, 215, 263, 265, 282, 503.
Abimelech, 3i6fF., 325 ff., 363 ff. 'Amraphel, 257.
AM-rdmu, 292. Anachronisms, v, xviii, 116, 149,
Abraham, his religious sigriifi- 265, 272, 316, 364, 419, 463.
cance, xxvi f. ; his migration, 'Anamim, 212.
xxi, xxvii f. , 238, ff. as242 ; Angel of God, 323, 342, 376.
Mahdi, xxviii, 247 legend of,
; ofYahwe, 286 f.
xliv, 241 f. ; covenants with, Angels, 31, 36, 14 if.
276 289 ff.
ff., name of, 244, ; Anthropomorphism, instances of,
292 f. death of, 341, 351 f.
;
7» 37, 51 » 129, 149, 154, 172,
Abram, name, xxv, 292. 300,328,411.
Field of, xxv, 244. 'Apriw, xvi, 218 f.
Accusative of condition, 77, 282, 'Aram, 206, 333 f.
474- 'Aram-naharaim, 342.
of definition, 29. Aramaeans, xxiii, 334, 356, 358,
after passive, 220. 403f.
of place, 376. 'Aran ('Oren), 434.
of time, 260. Ararat, 166.
'Adah, 118, 429 f. Archaisms, 29, 272, 306, 399.
Adapa and the South-wind, myth 'Ariok, 258.
of, 92. 'Arki, 216.
'Adbe'el, 353. 'Arpakshad, 205, 231.
'Adullam, 450. anomalous pointing of, 163
Article, ;
Aetiological motive in myth and with const., 348, 395.

legend, xif., 70, 95, 140, 332, 'Arvad, 216.
362. 'Asenath, 471.
Agriculture, 84, 87, 106, no, 185, Asher, xviii, 388, 528.
365- 'Ashkenaz, 197.
'Ahuzzath, 367. 'Ashteroth-Karnaim, 260, 262.
'Ai, 247. 'Ashfir, 351, 354.
'Akan, 434. 'Asshdr, 211, 350.
'Akbor, 436. 'Asshdrim, 350.
541
542 INDEXES — I. ENGLISH
'Avith, 435. Cohort, form with vav consec,

Ayyah, 434. 405;
Concubine-slave, xvii, 285.
Ba'al Hanan, 436. Cosmogonies, 6ff., Babyl-
18;
Babel, 210, 227. onian, ix, 20, 41 ff. Etruscan,
;
Babel-legends, 228 f. 50 Indian, 46

; ; Persian, 19,
Basemath, 430. 50; Phoenician, 46, 48 ff.
Bdellium, 60. Covenants, divine, 171 ff., 280 ff.,
**Bear upon knees," 386. 290 ff. human, 325 ff., 367 f.,
;
Beena marriage, 70, 384. 400 ff. -feast, 367, 401 ; idea
;
Bg er Lahay Roi, 288, 347 f., 352. of, 283 f., 297!". sign of, 172, ;
Beersheba, 325 fF., 331, 366 f., 491. 294, 297.

Beker, 494. •* Covering of the Eyes," 319.
Bela, 259, 435. Cult-legends, xi f., Ix, 379, 411.
Benjamin, 426, 534. Cup (in divination), 483.
Ben-'oni, 426. *'
Cut off" (from people, etc.), 294.
Bered, 288.
Berossus (quoted), 41 f., 132, 137. Damascius (quoted), 42.
Bethel, 247, 377 ff., 423 ff., 446. Dan, 266, 387, 527.
Bethfi el, 333. Dead Sea, vii, 252, 264, 273 f.
Betyl, 380. Deborah, 425.

Bilhah, 386. Dedan, 204, 350. »
Bilhan, 434. Deluge traditions, 174 ff. ; origin
Blessing, 38, 498. of, 180 f. ; Babylonian, i75ff. ;
Blessing of Jacob, 507 ff. ; Mono- Greek, 179 f. ; Indian, 179;

graphs on, 512. Phoenician, 180; Phrygian,
Blood, crying for vengeance, 170, 180 ; Syrian, 180.
447» 477- Diklah, 221.
Blood-revenge, no, ii2ff., 374. Dinah, 389, 421.
Books, "traditional," xxx, 509, Dinhabah, 435.
Dioscuri, 302, 312.
Bozrah, 435. Dish-an, -on, 434.
BAz, 333. Divine Names in Genesis, xxxvff.,
xlviii f.
Cain, loo, 102, 121 f. D6danim, 199.

Cain-legend, origin of, in ff. Dothan, 446 f.
Camel, 249 f., 345. Dreams, 316, 376, 394, 397, 445,
Canaan, 182 ff., 187, 201, 245. 460 ff. 465 ff. ,
Case-endings (old), 29, ii7f., 267, interpretation of, 461, 466.

399. 524- Dfimah, 353.
Chaldaeans, 237, 333.
Chaos, 14, 16, 19, 43, 46. Eabani (legend of), 91 ff., 517.
Chedorlaomer, 258. Eden, 57.
Cherubim, 89 f. site of, 62 ff.
Chronology, xivf., 134 ff., 167 f., Edom, Edomites, 356, 362, 373, 437.
233 f- Egypt, river of, 283.
Circumcision, 296 f., 420. Egyptian domination in Palestine,
Cities of the Plain, destruction of xvi, xviii, 538.
the, 310 ff. influence on Joseph-story, 442.
;
INDEXES — I. ENGLISH 54,
Elani, Elamites, 204 f., 257 ff., 272, Gad, 387, 528.
Gaham, 334.
'Elath (Eloth), 262, 436. Gematria, 266.
'Elda'ah, 351. Genealogies, artificial character
Eliezer, 279. of, 231.
'Eliphaz, 431. Genealogy, Cainite, 98 Sethite, ;
'Elishah, 198. 99 f. relation of Cainite and

;
Elohisticsource of Genesis, xxxvi ff. Sethite, 138 f.; Edomite,

characteristics of style, etc., 428 ff. Shemite,; 231; of
xlvii flf. ; age of, Hi ff. Ishmael, 352 f. of Keturah, ;
'Elon, 494. 350 of Nahor, 332 ff.

; of ;
El-Paran, 261. Terah, 235 ff.

Embalming-, 537. Genesis, Book of. Title, ii f.
'Emim, 263. canonical position of, i.

Enoch-legend, 132. scope of, ii.
'Enosh, 126. nature of tradition in, iii ff., xxxii.
Enunia ells, 9, 43 ff. structure and composition of,
Envy of the Gods, 75, 87, 94, xxxii ff.
229. ruling idea of, xxxiii.

':^phah, 351. sources of, xxxivff.
"Epher, 351. Gera, 494.
Ephraim, 471, 504, 530, 540. Gerar, 217, 315, 325, 364, 366.
'Ephrath, 426. Gihon, 61.
Eponyms, xxf., xxv, 189 f., 265. Gilead, 402 f.
Erech, 210. GilgameS Epic, 91, 175 ff., 209, 517.
Esau, 359ff-» 405ff-» 428 ff. Girgashite, 216.
'Esek, 366. Golden age, 35, 73, 87, 92, 159.
Ethnographic idea in legend, xii, Gomer, 196.
xixff., 186, 356, 403, 411 f., Good and evil, knowledge of, 95.
427, 450. Goren ha- Atad, 538.

Etymological motive in legends, Goshen, 488, 495, 497 f.
xiii, 220. Granaries (State), 472.
Eudemos (quoted), 49.
Euhemerism, 147. yabiri, xvi, xxii, 187, 218, 265.
Eve, 86, 102 ; —and the Serpent, Had6ram, 221.
85 f. See njn. Hadramaut, 221.
Exodus, date of, xv. Hagar, 284 ff., 322 ff.
name, 286.
Family, genealogical division of, Haggada, 28, :^:i, 237, 245.
194 patriarchal type of, 1S9
;
Ham, 262.
religious solidarity of, 152. Ham, 182, 195.
Fig leaves, 76, 93. Hamath, 217.
Firmament, 21 f. Hammurabi, xiv, xxii, xxvii, 257 f.,
Five (occurrence of no. in matters 335-

Egyptian), 483. Code of, xvii, xviii, xix, 285,
Flood. See Deluge. 454. 455. 459-
Flood-narrative analysed, 147 ff. Hamor, 416, 421.
Fragmentary hypothesis, xxxii, Hanok, 117, 351, 493.
xxxvii. HarSn, 236.
;
Harran, 238. as tribal eponym, xxiv, 356 f. ;

Havilah, 59, 65, 202. grave of, 538 as transjordanic
;
Hazezon-Tamar, 263. hero, 538.

Hazo, 333. Jacob, Strong One of, 531.
''Head," to ''lift up," 462 f. Japheth, 183!?., 195, 208.
Hebrews, 187, 217, 265, 458, 462 f. Javan, 198.
Hesperides, 94. Jerusalem, 268, 328.
Hezron, 494. Joseph, name of, 389 f. story ;
Hiddekel, 61. of, 438 - 528 elements ; in
Historicity of ch. 14, xviiif., 271 ff. Joseph - legend, 441 f. as ;
History and legend compared, diviner, 484 his agrarian

;
iiif. policy, 498 ff. ;

parallel fig-
Hittites, xvi, 214 f., 336, 368. ures in history, 501 f. ;
Hivvite, 216. blessing on, 529 ff. ; death

Hobah, 267. of, 540.
Horite, 263, 433, 437. Jiibal, 120.
Hai, 206. Jubilee- periods (Klostermann's

HCisham, 435. theory of), 233 f.
Judah, name of, 386, 519 separa- ;
Imag-e of God, 31 f. tion from his brethren, 450 f. ;
Immortality, 88, 92, 95, 132. his leadership in J, Ivi, 443,

Imperative, expressing conse- 495, etc.
quence, 243. blessing on, 518-525.
,, ,, a determination, Jussive of purpose, 227.

476. unapocopated, 22.
Imperfect consec. expressing 'para- Justification by faith, 280b
doxical consequence,' 307.

descriptive, 533. Kadesh, 262.
Incubation, 376. Kadmonites, 284.
Infinitive absolute used as juss., Kalneh, 210.
294 ; expressing irony, 398 Kaphtorim, 213.
after its verb, 307. Kasluhim, 213.
Infinitive, gerundial, 87. Kedar, 352.
Intoxication, 183, 482. Kedeshah, 454.
'Irad, 117. Kelah, 211, 354.
Isaac, name, 321 ; birth of, 321 ; Kem(i el, 333.
sacrifice of, 327 ff. marriage
; Kenan, 131.
of, 339 ff., 358 ; death of, 428. Kenaz, 431.
Fear of, 399, 402. Kenites, 113, 284.
Ishmael, 287, 352. Kenizzites, 284.
Ishmaelites, 448. Keturah, 349 f.
Israel,name, 409 f. Kgzib, 451.
Israel-Stone, Shepherd of, 531. Kid, as gift, 453.
Issachar, 389, 525 f. Kiryath-'Arba, 335.
Kittim, 199.
Jabal, 115, 120. Korah, 432.
Jabbok, 407. Koran, 140, 166.
Jacob, name, 360 history of, 355- ; Kudur-lagamar, 258 f.
428 legends regarding, 356
; Kush, 61, 65, 200, 207.
INDEXES — I. ENGLISH 545
Lamech, 117, 133. Mishma, 353.
Song of, 1 20 ff. Mizpah, 401 ff.
sons of, 120, 123. Mizraim, 201, 285.
Land-tenure in Egypt, 501. Mizzah, 431.
Leah, 383, 385, 387 ff., 420, 493 f., Mochos (quoted), 49.
516. Mohar, xviii, 319, 346, 383 f., 395,
Legend, idealisation of, xiil. 419.
Legendary aspects of Genesis, v ff. Monotheism, ix, 6, 25, 48, 72, 178,
Lehabim, 213. 269, 301.
Letfishim, 351. Moreh, 245 f.
Levi, 386, 420, 518. Moriah, land of, 328 f.
Levirate marriage, 452, Mourning rites, 335, 374, 449, 537.

Libation, 424. Musri-theory, 201, 249, 285, 472.
Lit. mtnusc, 40. Myth and legend distinguished,
Liver, as seat of mental affection, viii f. XXV. ,
517-
Lot, 236. Na'amah, 120.
Lotan, 313, 433. Nahor, 232.
Lfjd, LCidim, 2«56, 212. Names, 68 popular etymology
; of,
LOz, 378 f. xiii f.
naming of child by mother, 105 f.,
Ma'akah, 334. 314. 385-

Madai, 197. naming of child by father, 296.
Magic, 96. person and name, 127.
Magog, 197. proper n. compounded with
Mahaial'el, 131. participle, 131.
Mahanaim, 405. Naphish, 353.
Makir, 540. Naphtali, 387, 527 f,
Makpelah, 337 f. Naphtdhim, 213.

Mamre, 254, 265* Nebayoth, 352.
Manahath, 432 f. Negeb, 248.
Manasseh, 471, 504, 540. Nephilim, 140, 145 f.
Marduk, 209 f. Nile, 465.

Mash, 207. Nimrod, 207.
Masrekah, 435. Nineveh, 21 1.
Massa, 353. Noah, 133, 151 ff., 174, 181 ff., 195.
Matriarchate, 102, 344. Nod, III.
Mazzebah, 1, 378 f., 401, 416, 424. Nomadic life, in.
Medan, 350. Numbers (sacred), 8, 39, 98, 326,
Media, Medes, 197. 483-
Mehetab'el, 436.
Melkizedek, 267 ff. Oath, 345.
Meshech, 199. by genital organs, 341.
Messianic applications, 79 ff., 185 f., b)'^ king's life, 476.
521 ff. 'Obal, 221.
Methuselah, 132 f. 'Oholibamah, 430.
Mibsam, 353. Olive, 156.
Mibzar, 436. 'On, 470.
Midian, Midianites, 350, 448. Onam, 434.
35
Ophir, 222. Puncta extraordinaria, 413, 446.

Oratio ohliqua without '?, 248. Punic Tahella devotionis, 85.
pat, 201.
Paddan Aram, Ixiv, 358, 425.
Paradise. See Eden. Rachel, 383, 386, 388 f., 426 f., 504 f.
Paradise Legend, origin and grave of, 426.
significance of, 90 fF. Rainbow in mythology, I72f,

Paran, 324. Ra'mah, 203.
Parenthesis, 14, 34. Ramses, land of, 498.
Passive of Qal, 345. RecHning at table, 300.
Pathriisim, 213. Rehoboth, 366, 436.
Patriarchal tradition, background Resen, 211.
of, xivff. Re'u, 232.
local centre of, Iv. Re ft' el, 431.
Patriarchs as individuals, xxiii fF. Reuben, 386, 388, 427, 515.
as deities, xxiv f. Re'ftmah, 333.
as eponymous ancestors, xx f. Riphath, 197.
Peleg, 220, 232.
Peniel, 410 fF. Sabaeans, 203, 350.
Pg'6, 436. Sabbath, 35 f, 38 f.
Peoples, Table of, 187 fF. Sabtah, 202.
Perez, 456. Sabtekah, 203.
Perfect of certainty, 172,462. Sacrifice, 105, 157.
of confidence, 388. child and animat, 331 f.
of experience, 120, 517. essence of, 330.
of instant action, 172, 337. patriarchal, 1, Ix, 491.
modal use of, 321. Salem, 268

with sense of plupf., 283. Sanchuniathon (quoted), 48, 71 f.,
PhiUstines, 213, 327, 363 fF. 123, 140.

Philo Byblius (quoted), 48, 66, 105, Sanctuaries, origin of, xii, 246.
I23f. as repositories of tradition, xxxi,
Pikol, 325. 415-
Pildash, 333. Sarah, 237, 248 fF., 284 fF., 295,
Pishon, 59. ,3oofF., 315 flF., 335.
Plthom, 488, 495. Seba, 202.
Plural of eminence, 318, 396. '
Seed of woman,' 80 fF.
of species, 321. Se ir, 262, 360, 412, 414, 430, 437.
Polytheism, traces of, i6o, 303 Serpent, in Paradise, 72 f., 93 f.
318, 424, 491. worship, 81.

Potiphar, 457, 471. Serftg, 232.
Prayer, 305, 358 f., 406. Seth, 125 f., 131, 139.
Priestly code in Genesis, Ivii fF. Shammah, 431.
chronology of, 135. Sheba, 202, 203, 222, 350,
characteristics of, Ix fF. Shechem, 246, 421, 507.
literary style of, IxiifF., 11, 149. Shelah, 451, 534.
geographical horizon of, 191 fF. Sheleph, 221.
Prophet, H, 317. Shem, 195, 269.
Prophetic guilds, xxxi. Shemites, 217 fF., 231 flF.
Protevangeliuniy 81, 97. She&l, 352, 449.

INDEXES 1. ENGLISH 547
Shepherd, ideal, 398, Tradition, historical value of, vii,
Shiloh, xxxi, 522 f. xiii ff.
Shinar, 210, 225. Tree of Life, 88, 90, 94.

Sh6bal, 433. of Knowledge of Good and
"Short stories" of Genesis, Evil, 94 f.
xxviii f. Tiibal, 120, 199.
Shftah, 350. Tubal-Cain, 115, ii9f.
ShOr, 286, 3i5f., 3S3f. Twin-births, xvii, 103, 359.
Siddim, 260.
Signet-ring-, 454, 469. Ur, 229, 236.
Simeon, 386, 420, 518. Usoos, xi, 124, 360.
Sin, 97, 129, 317. 'Uz, 206, 333.
Sinite, 216. 'Ozal, 221.
Sinuhe, Tale of, xvi, xvii.
Sitnah, 366. Vav cons, in subord. clause, 369.
*' Sons of God," 141 f. Veil, 348, 454.
** Speak over the heart," 419, Volkssage, iv.
Spirit of God, 7 f. 469. 1 ,

Vow, 378 f.
Stone-worship, 380, 531.

Story-tellers, professional, xxxi. Women (no religious standing in
Sukkoth, 415. OT), 169.
Supplementary Hypothesis, xxxii, Word of God, 7.
xxxvii. of Jahwe, 277 f.
'World-egg,' 18, 49f.
Taboos, 66, 398, 410, 454.
**Tale of the two brothers," 69, Ya'akob-el, xvi, xviii, 360, 390.
459- Yahwistic source, xxxiv ff. a com- ;
Tamar, 451. posite work, xlivff., iff.,

Tarshish, 198. 240 f. characteristic
; of,
Tebah, 334. xlvii ff. date of, lii if. ; >lace
;
Tel-Amarna Tablets, 92, 187, 201, of origin, Iv.
413. 501 f- Ya'lam, 432.

T^ma, 353. Yanl}amu, 441, 501 f,
T^man, 431. Ye'ish, Ye'ftsh, 431,
Terah, 232. Yerah, 221.
Teraphim, 396, 423. Yered, 131.
Tidal, 259. Ygtar, 353.
Tikktine Sophertrtif 304, 345. Yidlaph, 333.
Timna, 433. Yishbak, 350.
Timnah, 453. Yiskah, 238.
Tlras, 199. Yithran, 434.
Tithe, 379. Yob, 494.
Togarmah, 197, Yobab, 222, 435.
T61a', 494. Yoktan, 220.
T6led6th, xxxiiif., 39ff., 174, 231, Y6seph-el, xvi, 389.
358, 428.
Book of, 40, 130, 236, 428 f., Zebulun, 389, 525 f.
443- Zemart, 217.

Totem clan-names, 232, 383, 386. Zeralj, 431, 456.
548 INDEXES II. HEBREW
Zib'6n, 434. Zodiac, signs of, 22, 26, 44, 65,
Zid6n, 215, 525. 90. 133. 146, 181.

Zodiacal theory of the tribes,
Zikkurat, 226, 228 f., 377, 380.
Zillah, 118. 445 517. 530. 534 f'
»
Zimran, 350. Zohar, 494.

Z6ar, 2S2f., 257, 309. Zfizim, 263.
II. HEBREW
'db"? k3, i6a
nana, 29.
Sat*, 296, 476.
^laN, 470. '9, 481.
nx, 55.
mra, 367.
n-jD5, 3^2-
Dijj, 56, 66, 68, 83, 125, 130.
n];S?, 271, 467.
no-iN, 56.
'4^1^, 359- yp?» 344-
n'lN ( = * consent '), 420. nj;,7?, 225.
nriK, 225. Nnn, i4f.

nn?, 163, 276, 283 f. , 367 ; 'a (p^pry) jm,
^ntj, 465.
'3 ''?y3, 266.
D'D^n nnn«, 513.
171 ;
nna (/>z.), 281. *

'K, 200.
^**»
*?><, 398, 49^ ;
°'?iy *?«> 327 ;
P'î'
^H- •?«, 289 'â' Vn, 290 f., niaa, 146, 207.
270 ; ;
481.
K'?a, 483-
D\n'?N, XXXV ff. ; art. with, 131, 159; Sm, 281.

D"^vn -n^H, 342. '13, 316.
^ha, 259.
^*<i^). ' ^^?fc» 307* 309. 364-
pnj, 78.
r,)^. 367.
n*?' , n^N, 245. Sa, 401.
n»)]i, 160.
j-.^K, [iVn, 245, 424.
T^K, 432.
"?^, 443-
'1?^ 353-
D'Nin, 388.
"iDN ( = • Speak'), 107.
niD^, 30.
-Vk noK, 316.
p"E'E-n, 278 f.
nnnpx, 477.
;yi3!<, 126.
K?>^, 23 f., 24.
'3 73-
n?<,
_
n;n, 225.
n^N and i^'K, 69.
•ân, 103.
Se'n, 326.
Kin (n'h), 60.
-nK ( = with '),
* 102.
no, = *die'), 279.
( = 'sign'),
112, 7,'2n(
nk 25, 103,
fi?9q, 3ô-
172.
various uses of, 30, 149, 169, 226, 1

= * namely,' 481.
9,
1^. 237.
383* 530-
^p^sil, 214.
j^
—
(termination), 306.
INDEXES — II. HEBREW 549
"?P^' iPI, 33- I!!1:D ^33, 252.
nnoi, 480. "b, 238.
IS, 462 D'W, 475.
;
"Sk n3n, 260. 1133, 118.

D'p; irnh, 382. n^b, i6i.
njn, 85, 103, 139. •T'3, 516, 537.
pN in;n, 29. D'ps njh-), 444.
•i^"?n, 305- 506.
I^lih
pSn, 267.
en, 453. 7, various uses of, 153, 170, 226.
HKDn, 300. 337» 414, 434-
ion, nph, 226, "n"?, 383-
n?0, 323- c«S 359.
»^n, 537. K'sS 519.
:i'jn, 266. •1"'?, 392.
Tian, 116. nnh, 499.
mn, io4f. bS, 448.
C'D53nn, 466. tytj'?. i»9, 35»«
nri = white bread, 463. oyS 361.
jnn, 419.
niND, 24.
D'n2o, 457. te, 154.
•T>'e, 353- njiJD, 346.
lye, 488. |jo, ja?, 269.

'i^sno, 311.
nk;, 465. niViD, 236.
D?;, 451. nyiD, 26.
i'^"":. 143. nno, 151.

niT ( = ' shares ' or * times '),
'?N'inD, 117,
482. .TOP, 487.
yT (euphemistically), 101, 125. ppnD, 5i9f.
Dv, 5, 20 f. 3 m 'D, 436.
dp:, 432 f. I'D, 24, 167.
n?:, 195. 1°?P, 157.
is;, 56. •TI?P, 516.
ynn û', 15a n3K'?D, 36, 414.
D'p;, 153- IP, 78, 108, 142.
yp', 408. nrjop, 526.
n-r, 402. nciJP, 104.
Bh', 488. D'^^, 394-
nn', 514. DP, 526.
Dipp ( = * sacred place'), 246, 376,
pnn m33, 426. 423.
nin DVns, 458. yip, 367-
DK '3, 500. D:n9fp, 526.
'3m31 DK '3, 462 f. p^c, 278 f.
|3V'3, 300. '?NV''n9, 117-

nny '3, 480. n'^B'in?, 132 f.
DV3, 362. wynp, 370-

550
INDEXES II. HEBREW 55^
ni»i?^, 183. moro TDB', 364.
"^"^. 385- nriD?', 285.
n^^, 224 f. I^'B^, 527-
'^'iv, 237. 344-

"i5«^»
n^, 295. pE', 27 f.
^Qli^y 524- B'i?', 469.
T\9, 126.
B^, asrel., 144, 521, 523.
B^t?, 520. niKn, 532.
9?', 474. n^n, i6of.

nî^y 36 f. in3i inn, 16, 50.
J3«>, 143- D'lnfi, 17, 23, 44 f., 48, 164, 532.

nrjV, 60. nn'?in, xxxiiif., 39, 174, 235
nnf', 262, 267, 358.
r\w, 79. 2t)n, 336.
enK', 330. '^?. 369-
n'?'B', 520 fF. D'Dn, 159.
B'^??, 474. •i«pi, 283.
oi?^, 415- r^j?,
28.
dtW, 540. nOT-)B, 68, 281.
or, 195, 226. npwn, 82, 107.
y'
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library
1012 01097 3230
DATE DUE
> )
M
mm
is
lii';
iiiiiiiili

ICCHS Genesis, Skinner. 1910

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICCHS Genesis, Skinner. 1910

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICCHS Genesis, Skinner. 1910

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International

Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum

zum A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar zum N. T. Several

prise, when it is practicable to combine British and American

Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of New York, and Messrs.

of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the

possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted with

notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Hon. M.A.(Cantab.)

It is a little was entrusted by the

when I commenced my While no one of these books

accordance with the programme of that series, to supply

considerably emphasised in the third edition, the first part

which have helped to elucidate special points of exegesis.

cates where common sense would have

is a chain which is a good deal stronger than its weakest

link, that it starts from cases where diversity of authorship

is almost incontrovertible, and moves on to others where

it is less certain ; and it is surely evident that when the

differences of representation or language assume a signifi-

on insufficient data of this kind, is one that I have sought to

although the exigencies of space have compelled me to

cular verse in consecutive notes running- concurrently with

embarrassment may result from the presence of a double set

who has rendered me the greatest service in collecting

Nature of the Tradition.

§ 3. Myth and Legend—Foreign Myths— Types of mythical

§ 5. Preservation and Collection of the Traditions . . xxviii

B. Structure and Composition of the Book.

§ 6. Plan and Divisions . . • xxxn

§ 9. Characteristics of J and E— their Relation to iterary

§ 10. Date and Place of Origin Redaction offE — lii

§ II. The Priestly Code and the Final Redaction Ivii

The Divine Image in Man . . . 31

Babylonian and other Cosmogonies • 41-50

The Cherubim ....

Historic Value of Ch. 14 , • 271-276

The Fate of Simeon and Levi .

The " Shiloh " Prophecy of 49I*' 521-524

Index — I. English . • • < 541-548

I. SOURCES (see pp. xxxivff.), TEXTS, AND VERSIONS.

Ba[ll] . . . C. J. Ball, The Bool of Genesis: Critical Edition of

Dr[iver] • . The Book of Genesis with Introduction and NoteSy

3. WORKS OF REFERENCE AND GENERAL LITERATURE.

Benz[inger], -(4rc/z.- I. Benzinger, Hebrdische Archdologie (2nd ed. 1907).

ii. Die Vorgeschichte Israels.

Frazer, AAO J. G. Frazer, Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in the

„ Affr. The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the

Kent, SOT . , C. F. Kent, Narratives of the Beginnings of Hebrew

Kit[tel], BH . R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica (Genesis) (1905).

K6n[ig-], Lgb. . F. E. Konig-, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebdude der

Lag"[arde], Ank. . P. A. de Lagarde, Ankiindigung einer neuen

„ GA^ . Geschichte des Alterthums (Bd. i. 1884).

Orr, POT . J.Orr, The Problem of the OT {igo6).

Thomson, LB • W. M. Thomson, The Land and the Book (3 vols.

Tristram, NHB . H. B. Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible

AJSL , American Journal of Semitic Languages and Litera-

ARW. A rchiv fiir Religionswissensch aft.

Deutsche Litteraturzeitung {\2>^o- ).