Chapter X (4)

With regard to the names, שָׂרַי seems to be an archaic form of
שָׂרָה = ‘princess’ (see on 17¹⁵), while מִלְכָּה means ‘queen.’ In
Babylonian the relations are reversed, _šarratu_ being the queen
and _malkatu_ the princess. It cannot be a mere coincidence
that these two names correspond to two personages belonging
to the pantheon of Ḥarran, where Šarratu was a title of the
moon-goddess, the consort of Sin, and Malkatu a title of Ištar,
also worshipped there (Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi.
299 f.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 364 f.).
It is needless to say that these associations, if they existed,
are forgotten in the Hebrew legend.――If, as is not improbable,
the tradition contains ethnographic reminiscences, verse ²⁸ ᶠᐧ
express (1) the dissolution of an older tribal group, Haran;
(2) the survival of one of its subdivisions (Loṭ) through
the protection of a stronger tribe; and (3) the absorption
of another (Milkah) in a kindred stock.――Of יִסְכָּה nothing is
known. The Rabbinical fiction that she is Sarah under another
name (implied in Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 151;
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, al.) is
worthless. Ewald’s conjecture that she was the wife of Loṭ is
plausible, but baseless.

* * * * *

=29.= וַיִּקַּח] singular, according to Gesenius-Kautzsch § 146
_f_.――=30.= עקרה] as 25²¹ 29³¹ (Yahwist); not in Priestly-Code
(see 16¹ᵃ).――וָלָד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ילד.
Only again as Kethîb of Or. MSS in 2 Samuel 6²³. It is possibly
here a scribal error, which eventually influenced the other
passages.

* * * * *

=31, 32.= The migration from Ur-Kasdîm to Canaan is accomplished in two stages. Teraḥ, as patriarchal head of the family, conducts the expedition as far as Ḥarran, where he dies. The obvious implication is that after his death the journey is resumed by Abram (12⁵); although _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ alone gives a chronology consistent with this view (_v. supra_). Nāḥôr, we are left to infer, remained behind in Ur-Kasdîm; and in the subsequent narratives Priestly-Code (in opposition to Yahwist) seems carefully to avoid any suggestion of a connexion between Nāḥôr and the city of Ḥarran.

חָרָן (with virtually doubled ר: compare LXX Χαρραν; Greek Κάῤῥαι;
Latin _Carræ_, _Charra_; Assyrian _Ḫarrânu_; Syrian and Arabic
_Ḥarrān_) was an important centre of the caravan trade in
North-west Mesopotamia, 60 miles East of Carchemish, situated
near the Baliḫ, 70 miles due North from its confluence with
the Euphrates. Though seldom mentioned in Old Testament (12⁴ ᶠᐧ
[Priestly-Code], 27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴ [Yahwist], 2 Kings 19¹², Ezekiel
27²³†), and now ruined, it was a city of great antiquity, and
retained its commercial importance in classical and mediæval
times. The name in Assyrian appears to be susceptible of
several interpretations――‘way,’ ‘caravan’ (Tel-Amarna Tablets),
‘joint-stock enterprise’ (Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_
_s.v._, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 29²)――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. Ḥarran was also (along with
Ur) a chief seat of the worship of Sin, who had there a temple,
_E-ḫul-ḫul_, described by Nabuna’id as “from remote days” a
“dwelling of the joy of his (Sin’s) heart” (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 97), and who was known in North-west
Asia as the “Lord of Ḥarran” (Zinjirli inscription: compare
Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 444,
_An._). See, further, Mez, _Geschichte der Stadt Ḥarrân in
Mesopotamien_; Tomkins, _Times of Abraham_, 55 ff. etc. This
double connexion of Abraham with centres of lunar religion
is the most plausible argument advanced by those who hold the
mythical view of his figure as an impersonation of the moon-god.

It will be observed that while both Priestly-Code and Yahwist
(in the present text) make Ur-Kasdîm the starting-point of the
Abrahamic migration, Yahwist has no allusion to a journey from
Ur to Ḥarran. 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 Ḥarran, and that באור כשדים is
here a gloss intended to harmonise Yahwist and Priestly-Code.
Now, there is a group of passages in Yahwist which, taken
together, unmistakably imply that Abraham was a native of Ḥarran,
and therefore started from thence to seek the promised land.
In 24⁴ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰, the place of Abraham’s nativity is Aram-Naharaim,
and specially the ‘city of Nāḥôr’; while a comparison with 27⁴³
28¹⁰ 29⁴ leaves no doubt that the ‘city of Nāḥôr’ was Ḥarran.
Priestly-Code, on the other hand, nowhere deviates from his
theory of a double migration with a halt at Ḥarran; and the
persistency with which he dissociates Laban and Rebecca from
Nāḥôr (25²⁰ 28²ᐧ ⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) is a proof that the omission of Nāḥôr
from the party that left Ur was intentional (Budde 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
Priestly-Code, though consistently maintained, is not natural;
for (1) all the antecedents (11¹⁰⁻²⁶) point to Mesopotamia as
the home of the patriarchs; and (2) the twofold migration, first
from Ur and then from Ḥarran, has itself the appearance of a
compromise between two conflicting traditions. The simplest
solution would be to suppose that both the references to
Ur-Kasdîm in Yahwist (11²⁸ 15⁷) are interpolations, and that
Priestly-Code had another tradition which he harmonised with
that of Yahwist by the expedient just mentioned (so Wellhausen,
Dillmann, Gunkel, Driver, al.). Budde holds that both traditions
were represented in different strata of Yahwist (Yahwist¹ Ḥarran,
Yahwist² 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
Priestly-Code could never have thought of the circuitous route
from Ur to Canaan by way of Ḥarran. That argument has little
weight with those who are prepared to believe that Priestly-Code
had other traditions at his disposal than those we happen to
know from Yahwist and Elohist.¹ In itself, the hypothesis of
a dual tradition within the school of Yahwist is perfectly
reasonable; but in this case, in spite of Budde’s close
reasoning, it appears insufficiently supported by other
indications. The view of Wellhausen is on the whole the more
acceptable.

¹ The suggestion has, of course, been made (Winckler
_Altorientalische Forschungen_ i. 98 ff.; Paton, _The Early
History of Syria and Palestine_ 42) that Elohist is the
source of the Ur-Kasdîm tradition; but in view of Joshua
24² that is not probable.

* * * * *

=31.= כלתו] כַּלָּה (Syrian (‡ Syriac word), Arabic _kannat_) means
both ‘spouse’ and ‘daughter-in-law’: in Syrian and Arabic also
‘sister-in-law,’――a fact adduced by William Robertson Smith as a
relic of Baal polyandry (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_²,
161, 209¹).――ויצאו אתם] gives no sense. Read with _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX (καὶ ἐξήγαγεν αὐτούς) Vulgate,
וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתָם, or Peshiṭtå, וַיֵּצֵא אִתָּם.――=32.= יְמֵי־תֶרַח] LXX + Χαῤῥάν.

* * * * *

THE PATRIARCHAL HISTORY.

ABRAHAM.

CHAPTERS XII‒XXV. 18.

_Critical Note._――In this section of Genesis the broad lines
of demarcation between Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly-Code 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 of its
component parts to Elohist and Priestly-Code respectively. These
questions have been brought to the front by the commentary of
Gunkel, who has made it probable that the Yahwistic document
contains two main strata, one (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) fixing Abraham’s
residence at Hebron, and the other (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) regarding
him as a denizen of the Negeb.

1. The kernel of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ is a cycle of legends in which
the fortunes of Abraham and Lot are interlinked: viz. 12¹⁻⁸;
13²ᐧ ⁵⁻¹⁸; 18; 19¹⁻²⁸; 19³⁰⁻³⁸. If these passages are read
continuously, they form an orderly narrative, tracing the march
of Abraham and Lot from Ḥarran 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
12⁹‒13¹ 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 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ at a
subsequent stage of Yahwist’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 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ is distinguished
from Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, 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 chapter 16, which, as breaking
the connexion of chapter 18 with 13, is plausibly assigned
to Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ. (To this source Gunkel also assigns the
Yahwistic component of chapter 15; but that chapter shows so
many signs of later elaboration that it can hardly have belonged
to either of the primary sources.)――After chapter 19, the hand
of Yahwist appears in the accounts of Isaac’s birth (21¹⁻⁷*)
and Abraham’s treaty with Abimelech (21²²⁻³⁴*): the latter is
probably Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (on account of the Negeb), while the
former shows slight discrepancies with the prediction of chapter
18, which lead us (though with less confidence) to assign
it also to Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ. With regard to chapter 24, it
is impossible to say whether it belongs to Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ or
Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ: we assign it provisionally to the latter.¹ The
bulk of the Yahwistic material may therefore be disposed in two
parallel series as follows:

Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ: 12¹⁻⁸*; 13²⁻¹⁸*; 18¹⁻¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰⁻²²ᵃᐧ ³³ᵇ; 19¹⁻²⁸;
19³⁰⁻³⁸;

Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ: 12⁹‒13¹; 16; 21¹⁻⁷*; 21²²⁻³⁴*; 24*.²

The Yahwistic sections not yet dealt with are chapter 15*
(see above); and the two genealogies, 22²⁰⁻²⁴ and 25¹⁻⁶, both
inserted by a Yahwistic editor from unknown sources. Other
passages (13¹⁴⁻¹⁷ 18¹⁷⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸) which appear to
have been added during the redaction (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ or
Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ) will be examined in special notes _ad locc._

¹ Gunkel analyses 24 into two narratives, assigning one to
each source. The question is discussed in the Note, pages
340 f., where the opinion is hazarded that the subordinate
source may be Elohist, in which case the other would
naturally be Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ.

² It is interesting to compare this result with the analysis
of the Yahwistic portions of chapters 1‒11 (pages 2‒4). In
each case Yahwist appears as a complex document, formed by
the amalgamation of prior collections of traditions; and
the question naturally arises whether any of the component
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 Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ in the biography of Abraham may be the
continuation of Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ in the primitive history.
Both use the phrase ‘call by the name of Yahwe’ (4²⁶ 12⁸
[13⁴], [but compare 21³³ (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ))]); and the
optimistic religious outlook expressed in the blessing of
Noah (9²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ) is shared in a marked degree by the writer of
Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ. Have we here fragments of a work whose theme
was the history of the Yahwe-religion, from its commencement
with Enosh to its establishment in the leading sanctuaries
of Palestine by Abraham and Isaac? See 12⁷ (Shechem), 12⁸
(Bethel), 13¹⁸ (Hebron), 26²⁵ (Beersheba).

2. The hand of Elohist is recognised in the following sections:
15*; 20; 21¹⁻⁷*; 21⁸⁻²¹; 21²²⁻³⁴*; 22¹⁻¹⁹ (24*?). Gunkel has
pointed out that where Yahwist and Elohist run parallel to one
another, Elohist’s ♦affinities are always with Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ
and never with Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ (compare the variants 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ ∥ 20;
16 ∥ 21⁸⁻²¹; and the compositions in 21¹⁻⁷ and 21²²⁻³⁴). This,
of course, might be merely a consequence of the fact that
Elohist, like Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ, makes the Negeb (Beersheba) the
scene of Abraham’s history. But it is remarkable that in chapter
26 we find unquestionable Yahwistic parallels to Elohist and
Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ, with Isaac as hero instead of Abraham. These
are probably to be attributed to the writer whom we have called
Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, who thus succeeded in preserving the Negeb
traditions, while at the same time maintaining the theory that
Abraham was the patron of Hebron, and Isaac of Beersheba.

♦ “affinites” replaced with “affinities”

Putting all the indications together, we are led to a tentative
hypothesis regarding the formation of the Abrahamic legend,
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 narratives took shape in two recensions, a Yahwistic
and an Elohistic, of which (it may be added) the second is
ethically and religiously on a higher level than the first.
These were partly amalgamated, probably before the union of
Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ and Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (see on chaapter 26). The
Hebron tradition was naturally indifferent to the narratives
which connected Abraham with the Negeb, or with its sanctuary
Beersheba; hence the writer of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, 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.

3. The account of Priestly-Code (12⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ 13⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᵇᐧ ¹²ᵃᵇ{α};
16¹ᵃᐧ ³ᐧ ¹⁵; 17; 19²⁹; 21¹ᵇᐧ ²ᵇ⁻⁵; 23; 25⁷⁻¹¹ᵃ; 25¹²⁻¹⁷) consists
mostly of a skeleton biography based on the older documents,
and presupposing a knowledge of them. The sole _raison d’être_
of such an outline is the chronological scheme into which the
various incidents are fitted: that it fills some gaps in the
history (birth of Ishmael, death of Abraham) is merely an
accident of the redaction. Priestly-Code’s affinities are
chiefly with Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, with whom he shares the idea that
Hebron was the permanent residence of Abraham. Of the sections
peculiar to Priestly-Code, chapter 17 is parallel to 15, and
25¹²⁻¹⁷ has probably replaced a lost Yahwistic genealogy of
Ishmael. Chapter 23 stands alone as presumably an instance where
Priestly-Code has preserved an altogether independent tradition.