Chapter XXIV

_Procuring a Wife for Isaac_
(Yahwist, [Elohist?]).

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 (¹⁻⁹). The servant is providentially guided to the house of Nāḥôr, in whose daughter (see on verse ¹⁵) Rebekah he is led to recognise the divinely appointed bride for Isaac (¹⁰⁻⁴⁹). Having obtained the consent of the relatives, and of the maiden herself (⁵⁰⁻⁶¹), 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 Genesis 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 the form of a speech (see
Driver 230). These artistic elements so predominate that the
primary ethnographic motive is completely submerged. It may be
conjectured that the basis of the narrative was a reinforcement
of the Aramæan element in the Hebrew stock, as in the kindred
story of Jacob and his wives (see Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung
der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 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. We
must also note the profoundly religious conception of Yahwe’s
providence as an unseen power, overruling events in answer to
prayer. All these features seem to indicate 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 (compare Gunkel 220).

_Source and Unity of the Narrative._――From the general character
of the style, and the consistent use of the name יהוה, critical
opinion has been practically unanimous in assigning the whole
chapter to Yahwist. 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 recensions.
Thus, the servant’s objection that the maiden may not be willing
to follow him (⁵ᐧ ³⁹), is met by Abraham in two ways: on the one
hand by the confident assurance that this will not happen (⁷ᐧ ⁴⁰),
and on the other by absolving him from his oath if his mission
should miscarry (⁸ᐧ ⁴¹). In ²⁹ ᶠᐧ Laban _twice_ goes out to the
man at the well (²⁹ᵇ ∥ ³⁰ᵇ); ²⁸ speaks of the _mother’s_ house,
²³ᵇ of the _father’s_: in ⁵⁰ the servant negotiates with _Laban
and Bethuel_, in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ with the _brother and mother_ of the
bride; in ⁵¹ the request is at once agreed to by the _relatives_
without regard to Rebekah’s wish, whereas in ⁵⁷ ᶠᐧ the decision
is left to _herself_; in ⁵⁹ Rebekah is sent away with her
_nurse_, in ⁶¹ᵃ she takes her own _maidens_ with her; her
departure is _twice_ recorded (⁶¹ᵃ ∥ ⁶¹ᵇ). These doublets and
variants are too numerous to be readily accounted for either
by transpositions of the text (Dillmann al.) or by divergences
in the _oral_ tradition (_Students’ Old Testament_, 96); and
although no complete analysis is here attempted, the presence
of two narratives must be recognised. That one of these is
Yahwist is quite certain; but it is to be observed that the
characteristically Yahwistic expressions are somewhat sparsely
distributed, and leave an ample margin of neutral ground
for critical ingenuity to sift out the variants between two
recensions.¹ The problem has been attacked with great acuteness
and skill by Gunkel (215‒221) and Procksch (14 f.), though with
very discordant results. I agree with Procksch that the second
component is in all probability Elohist, mainly on the ground
that a fusion of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ and Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (Gunkel)
is without parallel, whereas Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ and Elohist are
combined in chapter 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 Yahwist; while, in
the other, everything is consistent with the supposition that
Abraham’s residence is Beersheba (see page 241 above).

¹ יהוה, ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁰ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵⁰ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²ᐧ ⁵⁶;
ארם נהרים, ¹⁰ (against Priestly-Code’s פדן ארם); ארצי ומולדתי, ⁴ (12¹);
בא בימים ¹ (see on 18¹¹); טבת מראה, ¹⁶ (26⁷, compare 12¹¹); ידע, ¹⁶
(see on 4¹); יש with suffix and participle ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁹; טרם, ¹⁵ᐧ ⁴⁵;
הצליח, ²¹ᐧ ⁴⁰ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁵⁶ (39²ᐧ ³ᐧ ²³); הקרה, ¹² (27²⁰); רוץ לקראת, ¹⁷
(see 18²); נא, ²ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²³ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴³ᐧ ⁴⁵.

_The Death of Abraham._――It is impossible to escape the
impression that in verses ¹⁻⁹ Abraham is very near his end,
and that in ⁶²⁻⁶⁷ his death is presupposed. It follows that
the account of the event in Jehovist must have occurred in this
chapter, and been suppressed by the Redactor in favour of that
of Priestly-Code (25 ⁷⁻¹¹), according to which Abraham survived
the marriage of Isaac by some 35 years (compare 25²⁰). The only
question is whether it happened before or after the departure
of the servant. Except in ¹⁴ᵇ{α}, the servant invariably speaks
as if his master were still alive (compare ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᵇ{β}ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³⁷ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ
⁴⁴ᵇᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵⁴ᐧ ⁵⁶). In ⁶⁵, on 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. Gunkel supposes that in the document to
which ¹⁴ᵇ{α}ᐧ ³⁶ᵇ and ⁶⁵ belong (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ), the death was
recorded after ⁹ (and related by the servant after ⁴¹); while in
the other (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) it was first noticed in connexion with
the servant’s meeting with Isaac (before ⁶⁶). Procksch thinks
Elohist’s notice followed verse ⁹, but doubts whether Abraham’s
death was presupposed by Yahwist’s account of the servant’s
return.――Verse ³⁶ᵇ is thought to point _back_ to 25⁵; and
hence some critics (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, Dillmann, al.) suppose
that 25¹⁻⁶ ⁽¹¹ᵇ⁾ originally preceded chapter 24; while others
(Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel) find a more suitable place
for 25⁵ (with or without ¹¹ᵇ) between 24¹ and 24². See, further,
on 25 ¹⁻⁶ below.

=1‒9. The servant’s commission.=――=1.= _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 ᶠᐧ), and still acts as the trusted guardian of the family interests; compare the position of Ziba in 2 Samuel 9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 16¹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――_put thy hand, etc._] Only again 47²⁹)――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 (Gunkel).

The reference is to an oath by the genital organs, as emblems
of the 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 Ewald _Antiquities of Israel_ 19⁶ [English
translation]; Dillmann 301; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients_², 395; and especially the striking Australian
parallel cited by Spurreil (²218) from Sir G. Grey.¹ By
Jewish writers it was considered an appeal to the covenant
of circumcision (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome _Quæstiones sive
Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_, Rashi; so Tuch, Delitzsch).
Abraham Ibn Ezra explains it as a symbol of subjection, (adding
that it was still a custom in India); Ewald, Dillmann, Holzinger,
al. as invoking posterity (יֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ, 46²⁶, Exodus 1⁵, Judges 8³⁰)
to maintain the sanctity of the oath.

¹ “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.”

=3.= _God of heaven 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 verse ⁷).――_thou shalt not take, etc._] The motive is a natural concern for the purity of the stock: see Bertholet, _Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden_ 67.――=5‒8.= The servant’s fear is not that he may 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 Ḥarran? The suggestion elicits from the dying patriarch a last utterance of his unclouded faith in God.――=7.= _God of heaven_] _v.i._――_send his Angel_] compare Exodus 23²⁰ᐧ ²³ 33², Numbers 20¹⁶. The Angel is here an invisible presence, almost a personification of God’s providence; contrast the older conception in 16⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ.

* * * * *

=3.= לבני] LXX + Ἰσαάκ (as verse ⁴); so verse ⁷.――=4.= כי] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ כי אם.――At the end LXX,
Vulgate add מִשָּׁם as verse ⁷.――=5.= אָבָה] always with negative,
except Isaiah 1¹⁹, Job 39⁹ (Sirach 6³³).――=7.= אלהי השמים] appears
only in late books (Jonah 1⁹, 2 Chronicles 36²³ = Ezra 1²,
Nehemiah 1⁴ ᶠᐧ 2⁴ᐧ ²⁰: אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא is frequent in Aramaic parts of
Ezra and Daniel). The words are wanting in one Hebrew MS (see
Kittel), and may be deleted as a gloss. Otherwise we must add
with LXX ואלהי הארץ (compare ³).――ואשר נשבע לי] probably interpolated
by a later hand (Dillmann); see page 284 above.――=8.= אחריך] LXX +
εἰς τὴν γῆν ταύτην.――לא תשב (but _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ תשיב)] jussive with לֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 _d_.

* * * * *

=10‒14. The servant at the well.=――On the fidelity of the picture to Eastern life, see Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, i. 261.――=10.= _ten camels_] to bring home the bride and her attendants (⁶¹). But “such an expedition would not now be undertaken ... with any other animals, nor with a less number.”――_goodly things_] for presents to the bride and her relations (²²ᐧ ⁵³).――On _’Aram Naharaim_, see the footnote.――_the city of Nāḥôr_ in Yahwist would be Ḥarran (compare 27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴): 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 29¹).――=12‒14.= The servant’s prayer. The request for a sign is illustrated by Judges 6³⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 14⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ: note הִנֵּה אָֽנֹכִי [אֲנַחְנוּ] in all three cases. A spontaneous offer to draw for the camels would (if Thomson’s experience be typical) be unusual,――in any case the mark of a kind and obliging disposition.――=13.= _the daughters ... to draw water_] compare 1 Samuel 9¹¹.

* * * * *

=10.= Unless we admit a duality of sources, it will be necessary
to omit the first וַיֵּלֶךְ (with LXX).――וכל־] better וּמִכָּל־ (LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå).――ארם נהרים] Deuteronomy 23⁵, Judges 3⁸, Psalms 60²,
1 Chronicles 19⁶†. Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ארם דעל פרת. The identity of
the second element with Egyptian _Naharin_, Tel-Amarna Tablets
_Naḫrima_ (79¹⁴ [rev.], 181³⁴, 119³²) is beyond dispute; but
it is perhaps too readily assumed that geographically the
expressions correspond. The Egyptian Naharin extended from East
of the Euphrates to the valley of the Orontes (_Asien und Europa
nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 249 ff.); all that can be
certainly affirmed about the biblical term is that it embraced
_both_ sides of the Euphrates (Ḥarran on the East; Pethor on
the West [Deuteronomy 23⁵]). Since there is no trace of a dual
in the Egyptian and Canaanite forms, it is doubtful if the
Hebrew ending be anything but a Massoretic caprice (read נהרִים?),
or a locative termination, to be read _-ām_ (Wellhausen _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_² 45¹; Meyer, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, iii. 307 f.: compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 88
_c_, and Strack page 135 f. with reff.). There would in
this last case be no need to find a _second_ river (Tigris,
Chaboras, Baliḫ, Orontes, etc.) to go with Euphrates. The old
identification with the Greek Mesopotamia must apparently be
abandoned. See, further, Dillmann 302; Moore, _Judges_ 87, 89;
_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 28 f.――=12.=
הקרה] ‘make it occur,’ 27²⁰ (Yahwist).――=14.= הַֽנַּעֲרָ֯] Ḳrê. הנערה;
so verses ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ⁵⁵ᐧ ⁵⁷ 34³ᐧ ¹², Deuteronomy 22¹⁵ ᶠᐧ ²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²³⁻²⁹.
הנערה is found as Ke. in Pentateuch only Deuteronomy 22¹⁹, but
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads so throughout.
It is hazardous to postulate an archaic epicene use of נַעַר
on such restricted evidence: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 655 a;
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 17 _c_.――אשקה] LXX + ἕως ἂν παύσωνται
πίνουσαι.――הֹכַחְתָּ] _decide_, _adjudicate_, here = ‘allot’; so
only verse ⁴⁴. Contrast 20¹⁶ 21²⁵ 31³⁷ᐧ ⁴²† (Elohist), Leviticus
19¹⁷† (Priestly- Code).――ובה] ‘and thereby’; Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 135 _p_.

* * * * *

=15‒27. The servant and Rebekah.=――=15.= _who was born to Bethuel, etc._] compare ²⁴ᐧ ⁴⁷.

The somewhat awkward phrasing has led Dillmann al. to surmise
that all these verses have been glossed, and that here the
original text ran אֲשֶׁר יָֽלְדָה מִלְכָּה וגו׳, Rebekah being the daughter of
Milkah and Nāḥôr. Compare 29⁵, where Laban is described as
the son of Nāḥôr. The redactional insertion of Bethû’ēl would
be explained by the divergent tradition of Priestly-Code (25²⁰
28²ᐧ ⁵), in which Bethû’ēl is simply an ‘Aramæan,’ and not
connected with Nāḥôr at all (see Budde 421 ff.). The question
can hardly be decided (Holzinger 168); but there is a
considerable probability that the original Yahwist made Laban
and Rebekah the children of Nāḥôr. In that case, however, it
will be necessary to assume that the tradition represented by
Priestly-Code was known to the Yahwistic school before the final
redaction, and caused a remodelling of the genealogy of 22²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ
(see page 333). Compare, however, Bosse, _Mittheilungen der
vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1908, 2, page 8 f.

* * * * *

=15.= After טרם read יְכַלֶּה (compare ⁴⁵); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107
_c_.――_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate
inserts אֶל־לִבּוֹ after לְדַבֵּר (⁴⁵).

* * * * *

=16.= Taking no notice of the stranger, the maiden _went down to the fountain_ (עַיִן) ... _and came up_] In Eastern wells the water is frequently reached by steps: contrast Exodus 2¹⁶ (וַתִּדְלֶנָה), John 4¹¹.――=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_ and _bracelets_ are not the bridal gift (Gunkel), but a reward for the service rendered, intended to excite interest in the stranger, and secure the goodwill of the maiden. See Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ ii. 320, 323; compare _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 453².――=23‒25.= In the twofold question and answer, there is perhaps a trace of the composition of narratives; _v.i._――=24.= See on ¹⁵. Read _the daughter of Milkah whom she bore to Nāḥôr_ (as 34¹).――=26, 27.= The servant’s act of worship marks the close of the scene.

* * * * *

=18= end] LXX + ἕως ἐπαύσατο πίνων, omitting the first two
words of verse ¹⁹.――=20.= השקת] _the_ stone trough for watering
animals, found at every well (30³⁸, compare 30⁴¹, Exodus
2¹⁶).――=21.= משתאה] not ‘wondering’ (√ שׁאה; so Delitzsch), but
‘gazing’ (by-form of √ שעה) as Isaiah 41¹⁰. Construct state
before preposition: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 130 _a_.――=22.= משקלו]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + וישם על אפה, a
necessary addition (compare ⁴⁷). נֶזֶם accordingly is here a
‘nose-jewel’ (Isaiah 3²¹, Proverbs 11²²), in 35⁴, Exodus 32²ᐧ ³
(Elohist) an earring.――בקע] = ½ shekel (Exodus 38²⁶).――=23‒25.=
The theory of two recensions derives some little support from
the repeated ותאמר אליו of ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵. A mere rearrangement such as Ball
proposes (²³ᵃᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²³ᵇᐧ ²⁵) only cures one anomaly by creating
another; and is, besides, impossible if the amendment given
above for verse ²⁴ be accepted.――=25.= ללון] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ ללין, as verse ²³; but infinitive
elsewhere is always לוּן.――=27.= אנכי emphasises the following
accusative suffix (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 143 _b_, 135 _d_, _e_).
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) implies perhaps כִּי אִם (Ball) or כִּי
(Kittel); if not a mistake for (‡ Syriac word).――אחי] Point אֲחִי
(singular) with versions.

* * * * *

=28‒32. Laban’s hospitality= is inspired by the selfish greed for which that worthy was noted in tradition.――=28.= _her mother’s house_ cannot mean merely the female side of the family (Dillmann), for Laban belongs to it, and ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ imply that the father (whether Bethuel or Nāḥôr) is not the head of the house. Some find in the notice a relic of matriarchy (Holzinger, Gunkel); but the only necessary inference is that the father was dead.――=31.= _seeing I have cleared the house_] turning part of it into a stable.――=32.= _he_ (Laban) _brought the man in (v.i.) ... and ungirt the camels_] without removing the pack-saddles.¹――_to wash his feet, etc._] compare 18⁴.

¹ “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, _Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly
Statements_, 1904, 130).

* * * * *

=28.= אִמָּהּ] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (wrongly).――=30.= כראותו
(_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) is better than
Massoretic Text כראת.――והנה עמד] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 _s_;
Davidson § 100 (_a_).――=31.= פִּנִּיתִי] ‘cleared away,’ as Leviticus
14³⁶, Isaiah 40³ etc.; compare Arabic √ _fanaʸ_ IV. = _effecit
ut dispareret_.――=32.= וַיָּבֵא] (Vulgate) avoids an awkward change
of subject, and is to be preferred (Olshausen, Kautzsch-Socin,
Gunkel). The objection (Dillmann al.) that this would require
to be followed by אֶת־ is answered by the very next clause.
Irregularity in the use of אָת־ is a puzzling phenomenon in the
chapter, which unfortunately fits in with no workable scheme of
documentary analysis.

* * * * *

=33‒49. The servant’s narrative.=――A recapitulation of the story up to this point, with intentional variations of language, and with some abridgment. LXX frequently accommodates the text to what has gone before, but its readings need not be considered.――=35.= Compare 12¹⁶ 13².――=36b.= _has given him all that he had_] This is the only material addition to the narrative. But the notice is identical with 25⁵, and probably points back to it in some earlier context (see page 341 above).――=40.= _before whom I have walked_] Compare 17¹. Gunkel’s suggested alteration: ‘who has gone before me,’ is an unauthorised and unnecessary addition to the _Tikkûnê Sōpherîm_ (see 18²²).――=41.= אָלָה (_bis_) for שְׁבוּעָה, verse ⁸. On the connexion of _oath_ and _curse_, see Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 192 f.――=45‒47.= Greatly abbreviated from ¹⁵⁻²⁵.――_the daughter of [Bethû’ēl the son of Nāḥôr; etc._] see on ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁴.――=48.= _daughter of my master’s brother_] ‘Brother,’ may, of course, stand for ‘relative’ or ‘nephew’ (29¹²ᐧ ¹⁵); but if Bethuel be interpolated in ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ⁴⁷, Rebekah was actually first cousin to Isaac, and such marriages were considered the most eligible by the Naḥorites (29¹⁹).――=49.= _that I may turn, etc._] not to seek a bride elsewhere (Dillmann), but generally ‘that I may know how to act.’

* * * * *

=33.= וַיּיּשַׂם֯] Ḳrê and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
ויושם (Hophal √ שׂום), LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיָּשֶׂם. But Kethîb recurs in
Massoretic Text of 50²⁶ (וַיִּישֶׂם), again with passive significance.
The anomalous form may be passive of Qal (Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 73 _f_), or metaplastic Niphal from ישׂם or ושׂם (Nöldeke,
_Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_ 39 f.).――ויאמר²]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיֹּאמְרוּ,
which is perhaps better.――=36.= זקנתה] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX זִקְנָתוֹ.――=38.= אִם לֹא never has the sense
of Aramaic אֶלָּא (_sondern_), and must be taken as the common
form of adjuration (Delitzsch), _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ (_London Polyglott_) has כי אם.――=41.= מאלתי]
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 _n_.――The verse contains a slight
redundancy (ᵃ{α} ∥ ᵇ{β}), but nothing is gained by interposing
a clause between ᵃ{β} and ᵇ{α} (Kautzsch-Socin).――=46.= מעליה]
LXX ἐπὶ τὸν βραχίονα αὐτῆς ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς (conflate?); Vulgate _de
humero_ (compare ¹⁸).

* * * * *

=50‒61. Departure of Rebekah, with the consent and blessing of her relatives.=――=50.= The relatives, recognising the hand of Providence in the servant’s experiences, decline to answer _bad or good_: i.e., anything whatever, as 31²⁴ᐧ ²⁹, Numbers 24¹³ etc.

The verse as a whole yields a perfectly good sense: ‘_we_ cannot
speak, because _Yahwe_ has decided’; and ⁵¹ is a natural sequel.
It is a serious flaw in Gunkel’s analysis of ⁵⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, that he
has to break up ⁵⁰, connecting מִיהוה יָצָא הַדָּבָר with ⁵¹, and the rest
of the verse with ⁵⁷ ᶠᐧ (‘_we_ cannot speak: let the _maiden_
decide’).――On the other hand, לָבָן וּבְתוּאֵל in ⁵⁰ is barely consistent
with אָחִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵. Since the mention of the father after the
brother would in any case be surprising, Dillmann al. suppose
that here again ובתואל is an interpolation; Kittel reads וּבֵתוֹ, and
Holzinger substitutes וּמִלְכָּה. Gunkel (219) considers that in this
recension Bethuel is a younger brother of Laban.

=51.= Here, at all events, the matter is settled in accordance 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 מֹהַר (34¹², Exodus 22¹⁶, 1 Samuel 18²⁵†) or purchase-price of a wife; but Gunkel 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 _ṣadaḳ_ (the gift to the wife) have come to be synonymous terms for dowry (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 93, 96): compare Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 106.――=55.= The reluctance to part with Rebekah is another indication of refined feeling (Gunkel). On יָמִים אוֹ עָשׂוֹר, _v.i._――=56.= 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, 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 ⁵¹ cannot easily be got rid of.――=59.= _their sister_] compare ‘your daughter,’ 34⁸, the relation to the family being determined by that to the head of the house. But it is better to read אַחֶיהָ (plural) in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ with Vulgate, Peshiṭtå and MSS of LXX.――_her nurse_] see on 35⁸.――=60.= The blessing on the marriage (compare Ruth 4¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ)), rhythmic in form, is perhaps an ancient fragment of tribal poetry associated with the name of Rebekah.――_possess the gate_] as 22¹⁷.――=61a= and =61b= seem to be variants. For another solution (Kautzsch-Socin), see on ⁶².――_her maidens_] parallel to ‘her nurse’ in ⁵⁹.

* * * * *

=53.= מגדנת (Ezra 1⁶, 2 Chronicles 21³ 32²³†)] ‘costly gifts,’
from √ מגד, Arabic _maǧada_ = ‘be noble.’――=55.= וְאָחִיהָ] LXX,
Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאַחֶיהָ; and so Peshiṭtå, Vulgate and many
Greek cursives in ⁵³.――ימים או עשור] ‘a few days, say ten,’ is a
fairly satisfying rendering (LXX ἡμέρας ὡσεὶ δέκα); ‘a year
or ten months’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Rashi) is hardly admissible.
But the text seems uncertain: _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ ימים או חדש; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) (compare 29¹⁴).
In deference to _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
Peshiṭtå we may insert חֹדֶשׁ before יָמִים: ‘a month or at least
ten days’ (Olshausen, Ball).――תֵּלֵךְ] probably 3rd feminine (so
all Versions).――=59.= מנקתה] LXX τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῆς = מִקְנָתָהּ, a
word of Priestly-Code.――=60.= אַתְּ is appositional vocative, not
subject to אֲחֹתֵנוּ (_soror nostra es_, Vulgate).――הֲיִי] with abnormal
־ֲ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 63 _q_).――שנאיו] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ איביו, as 22¹⁷.

* * * * *

=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-laḥai-roi, and that near that well the meeting took place.

The difficulty lies partly in the corrupt מִבּוֹא (_v.i._), partly
in the circumstantial form of the sentence, and partly in the
unexplained disappearance of Abraham. Keeping these points
in mind, the most conservative exegesis is that of Delitzsch:
Isaac (supposed to be living with his father at Beersheba) ‘was
coming _from a walk in the direction of_ Beersheba’, when he met
the camels; this, however, makes וַיֵּצֵא (⁶³) pluperfect, which is
hardly right. More recent writers proceed on the assumption that
the death of Abraham had been explicitly recorded. Holzinger
suggests that Isaac had removed to Laḥairoi during his father’s
life (transposing 25¹¹ᵇ before 24²), and that now he comes
_from_ that place (reads מִמִּדְבַּֽר) on hearing of Abraham’s death.
Dillmann reads ⁶²ᵃ ויבא[יצחק] אל מדבר ב׳, and finds in these words
the notice of Isaac’s migration _to_ Beersheba.――Kautzsch-Socin,
reading as Dillmann, but making the servant implicit subject
of ויבא, puts the chief hiatus between ⁶¹ᵃ and ⁶¹ᵇ: the servant
on his return learned that Abraham was dead; then (⁶¹ᵇ) took
Rebekah and went further; and (⁶²ᵃ) came to Laḥairoi.――Gunkel
(operating with two sources) considers ⁶² the immediate sequel
to ⁶¹ᵃ in the document where Abraham’s death preceded the
servant’s departure, so that nothing remained to be chronicled
but Isaac’s removal to Laḥairoi (reads מְבוֹא, ‘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 chapter (after ¹⁰).

* * * * *

=62.= מִבּוֹא] cannot be infinitive construct with מִן; the French
_il vint d’arriver_ (Hupfeld 29) has no analogy in Hebrew idiom.
Nor can it readily be supposed equivalent to מִלְּבוֹא (1 Kings 8⁶⁵;
Delitzsch _v.s._); for the _direction_ in which Isaac took
his walk is an utterly irrelevant circumstance, _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX (διὰ τῆς ἐρήμου) read
במדבר, from which a fairly suitable text (מִדְבַּֽר or מִמּ׳) could be
obtained (compare Dillmann and Holzinger _s._). Gunkel’s מְבוֹא
(as accusative of direction) has no parallel except the very
remote one of מבואת ים, Ezekiel 27³ (of the situation of Tyre).
Other suggestions are to delete the word as an uncorrected
lapse of the pen; to read מִבְּאֵר with omission of the following
בְּאֵר (Lagarde, Procksch); to substitute מבא[רשׁבע] (‘from Beersheba
to’: Ball).――באר לחי ראי] LXX (here and 25¹¹) τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ὁράσεως,
omitting לחי; refer to page 289 above.

* * * * *

=63.= לָשׂוּחַ] a word of uncertain meaning, possibly _to roam_ (_v.i._).――_toward the approach of evening_] (Deuteronomy 23¹²), when the Oriental walks abroad (compare 3⁸).――_camels were coming_] In the distance he cannot discern them as his own.――=64.= At the sight of a stranger Rebekah dismounts (נָפַל as 2 Kings 5²¹), a mark of respect still observed in the East (_The Land and the Book_, i. 762; Seetzen, _Reisen_, iii. 190); compare Joshua 15¹⁸, 1 Samuel 25²³.――=65.= _It is my master_] Apparently the servant is aware, before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is dead.――The putting on of the _veil_ (compare _nubere viro_), the survival of a primitive marriage taboo, is part of the wedding ceremony (see Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵, i. 217 f.).――=67.= _brought her into the tent_] The next phrase (שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ) violates a fundamental 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 Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 108 f.).――_comforted himself after_ [the death of] _his mother_] It is conjectured (Wellhausen al.) that the real reading was ‘his father,’ whose death had recently taken place. The change would naturally suggest itself after Yahwist’s account of the death of Abraham had been suppressed in accordance with Priestly-Code’s chronology. The death of Sarah is likewise unrecorded by Yahwist or Elohist.

* * * * *

=63.= לָשׂוּחַ] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον commonly identified with שֵׁיחַ =
‘muse,’ ‘complain,’ ‘talk,’ etc.; so LXX (ἀδολεσχῆσαι), Aquila
(ὁμιλῆσαι), Symmachus (λαλῆσαι), Vulgate (_ad meditandum_: so
Tuch, Delitzsch), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (לצלאה: Rashi); Dillmann,
Kautzsch-Socin, al. think the sense of ‘mourning’ (for his
father) most probable; but? Abraham Ibn Ezra (‘to walk among
the shrubs’) and Böttcher (‘to gather brushwood’) derive from שֵׁיחַ
(21¹⁵). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) is thought to rest on a reading
לָשׁוּט (adopted by Gesenius al.), but is rather a conjecture.
Nöldeke (_Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_ 43 f.)
suggests a connexion with Arabic _sāḥa_ = ‘stroll’ (point
לָשׁוּחַ).――הגמלים of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ is
wrong (_v.s._).――=65.= הַלָּזֶה] 37¹⁹†; _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ הלז.――הצעיף] 38¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹† (Yahwist). On the article
compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _s_. After Lagarde’s brilliant
note (_Semitica_ 23 ff.), it can scarcely be doubted that the
word denotes a large double square wrapper or shawl, of any
material.――=67.= ויבאה] LXX εἰσῆλθεν δέ.――האהלה שרה] article with
construct is violently ungrammatical; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127
_f_.――For אִמּוֹ² read מוֹת אָבִיו (Kittel) _v.s._

* * * * *

XXV. 1‒6.
_The Sons of Ḳeṭurah_
(Yahwist? Redactor?).

The Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites acknowledged a looser kinship than with the Ishmaelites or Edomites are here represented as the offspring of Abraham by a second marriage (compare 1 Chronicles 1³² ᶠᐧ).

The names Midian, Sheba, Dedan (see below) show that these
Ḳeṭurean peoples must be sought in North Arabia, and in the
tract of country partly assigned to the Ishmaelites in verse
¹⁸. The fact that in Judges 8²⁴ Midianites are classed as
Ishmaelites (compare Genesis 37²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) 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.
Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 29¹) has dropped a hint that
Ḳeṭurah may be but a traditional variant of Hagar;¹ Holzinger
conjectures that the names in ²⁻⁴ are taken from Yahwist’s
lost Ishmaelite genealogy; and Kent (_Students’ Old Testament_,
i. 101) thinks it not improbable that Ḳeṭurah was originally
the wife of Ishmael. Glaser (ii. 450) considers the Ḳeṭureans
remains of the ancient Minæan people, and not essentially
different from the Ishmaelites and Edomites. See, further, on
verse ¹⁸ below.

¹ So Jewish interpreters: Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, _Bereshith Rabba_,
Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_,
Rashi (but not Abraham Ibn Ezra).

_Source._――(a) The genealogy (¹⁻⁴) contains slight traces of
Yahwist in יָלַר, ³; כָּל־אֵלָּה בְּנֵי ⁴ (compare 10²⁹ 9¹⁹); Priestly-Code
is excluded by ילד, and the discrepancy with 10⁷ as to Sheba
and Dedan; while Elohist appears not to have contained any
genealogies at all. The verses must therefore be assigned to
some Yahwistic source, in spite of the different origin given
for Sheba in 10²⁸.――(b) The section as a whole cannot, however,
belong to the primary Yahwistic document; because there the
death of Abraham had already been recorded in chapter 24, and
24³⁶ refers _back_ to 25⁵.¹ We must conclude that 25¹⁻⁶ is the
work of a compiler, who has incorporated the genealogy, and
taken verse ⁵ from its original position (see on 24³⁶) to bring
it into connexion with Abraham’s death. These changes may have
been made in a revised edition of Yahwist (so Gunkel); but in
this case we must suppose that the account of Abraham’s death
was also transferred from chapter 24, to be afterwards replaced
by the notice of Priestly-Code. It seems to me easier (in view
of ¹¹ᵇ and ¹⁸) to hold that the adjustments were effected during
the final redaction of the Pentateuch, in accordance with the
chronological scheme of Priestly-Code.

¹ The mere transposition of 25¹⁻⁶ before chapter 24 (Hupfeld,
Wellhausen, al.) does not fully meet the difficulty, there
being, in fact, no suitable place for a second marriage of
Abraham anywhere in the original Yahwist (Holzinger).

=1.= _Ḳĕṭûrāh_, called a ‘concubine’ in 1 Chronicles 1³² (compare verse ⁶ 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 _Ḳaṭūra_ in the vicinity of Mecca (Knobel-Dillmann). There is no ‘absurdity’ (Delitzsch) in the suggestion that it may contain an allusion to the traffic in incense (קְטוֹרָה) which passed through these regions (see Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 313).――=2‒4.= The Ḳeṭurean stock is divided into 6 (LXX 7) main branches, of which only one, Midian, attained historic importance. The minor groups number 10 (LXX 12), including the well-known names Sheba and Dedan.

=2.= זִמְרָן (Ζεβράν, Ζομβράν, etc.) has been connected with the
Ζαβράμ [Ζαδραμ?] of Ptolemy vi. 7. 5, West of Mecca (Knobel);
and with the _Zamareni_ of Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, vi.
158, in the interior; but these are probably too far South.
The name is probably derived from זֶמֶר = ‘wild goat,’ the ending
_ān_ (which is common in the Ḳeṭurean and Ḥorite lists and
rare elsewhere) being apparently gentilic: compare זִמְרִי, Numbers
25¹⁴, 1 Chronicles 2⁶ 8³⁶ 9⁴². A connexion with זִמְרִי (Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word)), Jeremiah 25²⁵ is very doubtful. On יָקְשָׁן (Ἰεξάν,
Ἱεκτάν, etc.) see on verse ³――מְדָן (Μαδαίμ)] unknown. Wetzstein
instances a Wādī Medān near the ruins of Daidan.――מִדְיָן (Μαδιάμ)]
The name appears as Μοδίανα = Μαδιαμα in Ptolemy vi. 7. 2, 27
(compare Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ ii. 257; Eusebius
_Onomasticon_, page 276), the _Madyan_ of Arab geography, a town
on the East side of the Gulf of Aḳaba, opposite the South end
of the Sinaitic peninsula (see Nöldeke _Encyclopædia Biblica_,
3081). The chief seat of this great tribe or nation must
therefore have been in the northern Ḥiǧāz, whence roving bands
ravaged the territory of Moab, Edom (Genesis 36³⁵), and Israel
(Judges 6‒8). The mention of Midianites in the neighbourhood of
Horeb may be due to a confusion between Yahwist and Elohist (see
Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 3 f.); 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 [Genesis 37²⁸ᐧ ³⁶,
Isaiah 60⁶], sometimes as roving warriors, delighting to
raid the more settled districts” (Nöldeke).――יִשְׁבָּק and שׁוּחַ have
been identified by Friedrich Delitzsch (_Zeitschrift für
Keilschriftsforschung_, ii. 91 f., _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 297 f.)
and Glaser (ii. 445 f.), with _Yasbuḳ_ and _Sûḫu_ of Assyrian
monuments (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 159, 33, 99,
101), both regions of northern Syria. Delitzsch has since
abandoned the latter identification (_Hiob_, 139) for phonetic
reasons.――=3.= שְׁבָא and דְּדָן] see on 10⁷. As they are there
bracketed under רַֽעֲמָה, so here under יָקְשָׁן, a name otherwise unknown.
The equation with יָקְטָן (10²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ), proposed by Tuch and accepted
by Meyer (318), is phonologically difficult. Since the Sabæans
are here still in the North, it would seem that this genealogy
goes farther back than that of the Yokṭanite Arabs in chapter
10. Between Sheba and Dedan, LXX inserts Θαιμάν (= תֵימָא, verse
¹⁵).――=3b.= The sons of Dedan are wanting in 1 Chronicles,
and are probably interpolated here (note the plural). LXX
has in addition Ραγουὴλ (compare 36¹⁰) καὶ Ναβδεήλ (compare
verse ¹³).――אַשּׁוּרִם] certainly not the Assyrians (אַשּׁוּר), but some
obscure North Arabian tribe,――_possibly_ the אאשר mentioned
on two Minæan inscriptions along with מצר (Egypt), עבר נהרן, and
Gaza (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments_, 248 f., 252 f., _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen
arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 297 ff.; Glaser, ii. 455
ff.; Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 28 f.; König,
_Fünf Landschaften_, 9: compare, on the other side, Meyer
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi. 327 ff., _Die Israeliten
und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 320 ff.).――לְטוּשִׁם] The personal name לטשו
(as also אשורו) has been found in Nabatean inscriptions; see Levy,
_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xiv.
403 f., 447, 477 f., where attention is called to the prevalence
of craftsmen’s names in these inscriptions, and a connexion of
ל׳ with לֹטֵשׁ in 4²² is suggested.――=4.= Five sons of Midian.――עֵיפָה
is named along with Midian in Isaiah 60⁶ as a trading tribe.
It has been identified with the _Ḫayapa_ (= עֲיָפָה?) mentioned
by Tiglath-pileser IV. and Sargon, along with some 6 other
rebellious Arab tribes (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
ii. 21, 43): see Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 304, _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 58.――With עֵפֶר,
Wetzstein compares the modern _‛Ofr_ (Dillmann); Glaser
(449), Assyrian _Apparu_ (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii.
223).――חֲנֹךְ] Perhaps _Hanākiya_ near _‛Ofr_ (Knobel-Dillmann).――It
is noteworthy that these three names――עיפה, 1 Chronicles 2⁴⁶ ᶠᐧ;
עפר, 1 Chronicles 4¹⁷ 5²⁴; חנך, Genesis 46⁹, Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers
26⁵, 1 Chronicles 5³――are found in the Hebrew tribes most
exposed to contact with Midian (Judah, Manasseh, Reuben).
Does this show an incorporation of Midianite clans in Israel?
(Nöldeke).――אֲבִידָע (_‛Abî-yada‛a_) and אֶלְדָּעָה (_’Il- yeda‛_ and
_Yeda-’il_) are personal names in Sabæan, the former being borne
by several kings (_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen
Gesellschaft_, xxvii. 648, xxxvii. 399; Glasser ii. 449).

=5.= See on 24³⁶.――=6.= The exodus of the _Bnê Ḳedem_ (composed by a redactor).――_the concubines_] apparently Hagar and Ḳeṭurah, though neither bears that opprobrious epithet in Genesis: in 16³ Hagar is even called אִשָּׁה. Moreover, Ishmael and his mother, according to Yahwist and Elohist, had long been separated from Abraham.――_sent them away from off Isaac_] so as not to be a burden upon him. Compare Judges 11².――_eastward to the land of Ḳedem_] the Syro-Arabian desert.

So we must render, unless (with Gunkel) we are to take the two
phrases קֵדְמָה and אֶל־אֶרֶץ קֶדֶם as variants. But קֶדֶם in Old Testament
is often a definite geographical expression, denoting the region
East and South-east of the Dead Sea (compare 29¹, Numbers 23⁷,
Judges 6³ᐧ ³³ 7¹² 8¹⁰, Isaiah 11¹⁴, Jeremiah 49²⁸, Ezekiel 25⁴ᐧ ¹⁰,
Job 1³); and although its appellative significance could, of
course, not be forgotten, it has almost the force of a proper
name. It is so used in the Egyptian romance of Sinuhe (_circa_
1900 B.C.): see Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 46 f.; Winckler _Geschichte Israels in
Einzeldarstellungen_, 52 ff.; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 243 f.

* * * * *

=5= end] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Peshiṭtå + בְּנוֹ.――=6.= פִּילֶגֶשׁ (see on 22²⁴) is used of שִׁפְחָה in
35²².――אשר לאברהם] LXX αὐτοῦ.

* * * * *

XXV. 7‒11.
_The Death and Burial of Abraham_
(Priestly-Code).

⁷⁻¹¹ᵃ are the continuation of 23²⁰ in Priestly-Code. Note the
characteristic phrases: יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי, ⁷; גָּוַע, בְּשֶׁיבָה טוֹבָה, נֶֽאֱסַף אֶל־עַמָּיו ⁸; אֱלֹהִים,
¹¹ᵃ; the chronology ⁷, the reminiscences of chapter 23, and the
backward reference in 49³¹.――¹¹ᵇ belongs to Yahwist.

=8.= _gathered to his kindred_ (see on 17¹⁴)] Originally, this and similar phrases (15¹⁵ 47³⁰, Deuteronomy 31¹⁶ etc.) denoted burial in the family sepulchre; but the popular conception of Sheôl 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 Priestly-Code.――=11a.= Transition to the history of Isaac (25¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ).

¹¹ᵇ (like verse ⁵) has been torn from its context in Yahwist,
where it may have stood after 24¹ 25⁵, or (more probably)
after the notice of Abraham’s death (compare 24⁶²). Meyer
(_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 253, 323) makes the
improbable conjecture that the statement referred originally
to Ishmael, and formed, along with verse ¹⁸, the conclusion of
chapter 16.

* * * * *

=8.= ויגוע וימת] verse ¹⁷ 35²⁹; see on 6¹⁷.――ושבע] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX better ושבע ימים, as
35²⁹.――ויאסף וגו׳] so 25¹⁷ 35²⁹ 49²⁹ᐧ ³³, Numbers 20²⁴ᐧ ²⁶ 27¹³ 31²,
Deuteronomy 32⁵⁰† (all Priestly-Code).――=10.= השדה] LXX + καὶ
τὸ σπήλαιον.――=11.= לחי ראי] see on 24⁶².

* * * * *

XXV. 12‒18.
_The Genealogy and Death of Ishmael_
(Priestly-Code).

With the exception of verse ¹⁸, which is another isolated fragment of Yahwist, the passage is an excerpt from the _Tôledôth_ of the Priestly Code.――The names of the genealogy (¹³⁻¹⁶) represent at once ‘princes’ (נְשֵׁיאִם: compare the promise of 17²⁰) and ‘peoples’ (אֻמֹּת, ¹⁶); 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 Priestly-Code the Ishmaelites occupy a
territory intermediate between the Arabian Cushites on the
South (10⁷), the Edomites, Moabites, etc., on the West, and
the Aramæans on the North (10²² ᶠᐧ); _i.e._, roughly speaking,
the Syro-Arabian desert north of Ǧebel Shammar. In Yahwist they
extend West to the border of Egypt (verse ¹⁸).――The Ishmaelites
have left very little mark in history. From the fact that
they are not mentioned in Egyptian or Assyrian records, Meyer
infers that their flourishing period was from the 12th to the
9th centuries B.C. (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_,
324). In Old Testament the latest possible traces of Ishmael
as a people are in the time of David (compare 2 Samuel 17²⁵,
1 Chronicles 2¹⁷ 27³⁰), though the name occurs sporadically
as that of an individual or clan in much later times (Jeremiah
40⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, 2 Kings 25²³, 1 Chronicles 8³⁸ 9⁴⁴, 2 Chronicles 19¹¹
23¹, Ezra 10²²). In Genesis 37²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, Judges 8²⁴, it is possible
that ‘Ishmaelites’ is synonymous with Bedouin in general (see
Meyer, 326).

=13.= נְבָיֹת וְקֵדָר] are the _Nabayati_ and _Ḳidri_ of Assyrian
monuments (Asshurbanipal: _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii.
215 ff.; compare Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 297, 299; _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 151), and possibly the
_Nabatæi_ and _Cedrei_ of Pliny, v. 65 (compare vi. 157, etc.).
The references do not enable us to locate them with precision,
but they must be put somewhere in the desert East of Palestine
or Edom. The Nabatæans of a later age (see Schürer, _Geschichte
des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi_³ᐧ ⁴, i. 728 ff.)
were naturally identified with נְבָיֹת by Josephus (_Antiquities
of the Jews_ i. 220 f.), Jerome (_Quæstiones sive Traditiones
hebraicæ in Genesim_), Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ [נבט], as they still are
by Schrader, Schürer, and some others. But since the native name
of the Nabatæans was נבטו, the identification is doubtful, and is
now mostly abandoned. The two tribes are mentioned together in
Isaiah 60⁷: נְבָיֹת alone only Genesis 28⁹ 36³; but קֵדָר is alluded to
from the time of Jeremiah downwards as a typical nomadic tribe
of the Eastern desert. In late Hebrew the name was extended to
the Arabs as a whole (so Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ערב).――אַדְבְּאֵל (Ναβδεήλ:
see on verse ³)] Perhaps an Arab tribe _Idibi’il_ which
Tiglath-pileser IV. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 21)
appointed to watch the Egyptian frontier (not necessarily the
border of Egypt proper).――מִבְשָׂם] a Simeonite clan (1 Chronicles
4²⁵), otherwise not known.――=14.= מִשְׁמָע follows מבשם in
1 Chronicles 4²⁵. Dillmann compares a _Ǧebel Misma’_ South-east
of Kāf, and another near Ḥāyil East of Teima.――דּוּמָה] Several
places bearing this name are known (Dillmann); but the one that
best suits this passage is the Dūmah which Arabic writers place
4 days’ journey North of Teima: viz. _Dūmat el-Ǧendel_, now
called _el-Ǧōf_, a great oasis in the South of the Syrian desert
and on the border of the _Nefūd_ (Doughty, _Travels in Arabia
Deserta_ ii. 607; compare Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria and
the Holy Land._ 602). It is probably the Δούμαιθα of Ptolemy
v. 18 (19). 7, the _Domata_ of Pliny vi. 157.――מַשָּׂא] See on
10³⁰, and compare Proverbs 31¹. A tribe _Mas’a_ is named by
Tiglath-pileser IV. along with Teima (verse ¹⁵), Saba’, Hayapa
(⁴), Idibi’il (¹³), and may be identical with the Μασανοι
of Ptolemy v. 18 (19). 2, North-east of Δούμαιθα.――=15.= חֲדַד]
unknown.――תֵּימָא (Isaiah 21¹⁴, Jeremiah 25²³, Job 6¹⁹) is the
modern _Teima_, on the West border of the Neǧd, _circa_ 250
miles South-east of Aḳāba, still an important caravan station on
the route from Yemen to Syria, and (as local inscriptions show)
in ancient times the seat of a highly developed civilisation:
see the descriptions in Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i.
285 ff., 549 ff.――יְטוּר and נָפִישׁ are named together in 1 Chronicles
5¹⁹ among the East-Jordanic tribes defeated by the Reubenites in
the time of Saul. יטור is no doubt the same people which emerges
about 100 B.C. under the name Ἰτουραῖοι, as a body of fierce and
predatory mountaineers settled in the Anti-Lebanon (see Schürer,
_Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi_,
i. 707 ff.).――Of קֵדְמָה nothing is known. Should we read נוֹדָב
as 1 Chronicles 5¹⁹ (Ball, Kittel)?――=16.= בְּחַצְרֵיהֶם] ‘in their
settlements’ or ‘villages’; compare Isaiah 42¹¹ ‘the villages
that Kedar doth inhabit.’――וּבְטִירֹתָם] טִרָה (Numbers 31¹⁰, Ezekiel
25⁴, Psalms 69²⁶, 1 Chronicles 6³⁹) is apparently a technical
term for the circular encampment of a nomadic tribe. According
to Doughty (i. 261), the Arabic _dīrah_ denotes the Bedouin
circuit, but also, in some cases, their town settlements.――לְאֻמֹּתָם]
‘according to their peoples.’ אֻמֶּה is the Arabic _’ummat_, rare in
Hebrew (Numbers 25¹⁵, Psalms 117¹†).――=17.= Compare verses ⁷ᐧ ⁸.

Verse ¹⁸ is a stray verse of Yahwist, whose original setting
it is impossible to determine. There is much plausibility in
Holzinger’s conjecture that it was the conclusion of Yahwist’s
lost genealogy of Ishmael (compare 10¹⁹ᐧ ³⁰). Gunkel thinks it
was taken from the end of chapter 16: similarly Meyer, who makes
¹¹ᵇ (page 352 above) a connecting link. Dillmann suggests that
the first half may have followed 25⁶, the reference being not
to the Ishmaelites but to the Ḳeṭureans; and that the second
half is a gloss from 16¹². But even ¹⁸ᵃ is not consistent with
¹¹ᵇ, for we have seen that the Ḳeṭureans are found East and
South-east of Palestine, and Shûr is certainly not ‘eastward’
from where Abraham dwelt.――If Ḥavîlah has been rightly located
on page 202 above, Yahwist fixes the eastern limit of the
Ishmaelites in the neighbourhood of the Ǧōf es-Sirhān, while the
western limit is the frontier of Egypt (on _Shûr_, see on 16⁷).
This description is, of course, inapplicable to Priestly-Code’s
Ishmaelites; but it agrees sufficiently with the statement of
Elohist (21²¹) that their home 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 בֹּאֲכָה אַשּׁוּרָה must be either deleted as a gloss (Wellhausen,
Dillmann, Meyer, al.), or else read בּ׳ אָשׁוּרָה; אָשׁוּר being the
hypothetical North Arabian tribe supposed to be mentioned in
25³ (so Gunkel; compare Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition
as illustrated by the Monuments_, 240 f.; König _Fünf Neue
Arabische Landschaftsnamen im Alten Testament_ 11 ff.), a
view for which there is very little justification.――¹⁸ᵇ is
an adaptation of 16¹²ᵇ, but throws no light on that difficult
sentence. Perhaps the best commentary is Judges 7¹², where again
the verb נָפַל has the sense of ‘settle’ (= שָׁכֵן in 16¹²). Hommel’s
restoration עַל־פְּנֵי כֶלַח, ‘in front of Kelaḥ’ (a secondary gloss on
אַשּׁוּר), is a brilliant example of misplaced ingenuity.

THE HISTORY OF JACOB.
CHAPTERS XXV. 19‒XXXVI.

Setting aside chapter 26 (a misplaced appendix to the history
of Abraham: see page 363), and chapter 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 Gunkel
257 ff.).

A. _Jacob and Esau_:

1. The birth and youth of Esau and Jacob (25¹⁹⁻²⁸). 2. The
transference of the birthright (25²⁹⁻³⁴). 3. Jacob procures his
father’s blessing by a fraud (27).

B. _Jacob and Laban_:

1. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel (29¹⁻¹⁴). 2. His marriage to
Leah and Rachel (29¹⁵⁻³⁰). 3. The births of Jacob’s children
(29³¹‒30²⁴). 4. Jacob’s bargain with Laban (30²⁵⁻⁴³). 5. The
flight from Laban and the Treaty of Gilead (31¹‒32¹).

C. _Jacob’s return to Canaan_ (loose and fragmentary):

1. Jacob’s measures for appeasing Esau (32⁴⁻²²).¹ 2. The meeting
of the brothers (33¹⁻¹⁷).¹ 3. The sack of Shechem (34). 4. The
visit to Bethel, etc. (35¹⁻¹⁵). 5. The birth of Benjamin and
death of Rachel (35¹⁶⁻²⁰). 6. Reuben’s incest (35²¹ ᶠᐧ).

D. Interspersed amongst these are several _cult-legends_,
connected with sanctuaries of which Jacob was the reputed
founder.

1. The dream at Bethel (28¹⁰⁻²²)――a transition from A to B.
2. The encounter with angels at Mahanaim――a fragment (32² ᶠᐧ).
3. The wrestling at Peniel (32²³⁻³³). 4. The purchase of a lot
at Shechem (33¹⁸⁻²⁰). 5. The second visit to Bethel――partly
biographical (see below) (35¹⁻¹⁵).

¹ Gunkel recognises a second series of Jacob-Esau stories in
C. 1, 2; but these are entirely different in character from
the group A. To all appearance they are conscious literary
creations, composed in a biographical interest, and without
historical or ethnographic significance.

The section on Jacob exhibits a much more intimate fusion
of sources than that on Abraham. The _disjecta membra_ of
Priestly-Code’s epitome can, indeed, be distinguished without
much difficulty, viz. 25¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁶ᵇ 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ 28¹⁻⁹ 29²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᵇᐧ ²⁹
30⁴ᵃᐧ ⁹ᵇᐧ ²²ᵃ 31¹⁸ᵃ{βγδ}ᵇ 33¹⁸ᵃ{β} 35⁶ᵃᐧ ⁹ ᶠᐧ ¹¹⁻¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²²ᵇ⁻²⁶ᐧ
²⁷⁻²⁹ 36¹. Even here, however, the redactor has allowed
himself a freedom which he hardly uses in the earlier portions
of Genesis. Not only are there omissions in Priestly-Code’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 Jehovist.――The rest of
the material is taken from the composite Jehovist, with the
exception of chapter 34, which seems to belong to an older stage
of tradition (see page 418). But the component documents are no
longer represented by homogeneous sections (like chapters 16.
18 f. [Yahwist], 20. 22 [Elohist]); 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 Yahwist and Elohist 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
Priestly-Code’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 framework 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 Yahwist and
Elohist, 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 chapters 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 first place that the _ethnographic_ idea is much
more prominent in the story of Jacob than in that of any other
patriarch. It is obvious that the Jacob-Esau stories of chapters
25, 27 reflect the relations between the nations of Israel and
Edom; and similarly at the end of chapter 31, Jacob and Laban
appear as representatives of Israelites and Aramæans. 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 Ya‛ăḳōb-ēl) was a Hebrew tribe which, being overpowered by
the Edomites, sought refuge among the Aramæans, and afterwards,
reinforced by the absorption of an Aramæan clan (Rachel),
returned and settled in Canaan: the events being placed between
the Exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Palestine (_Die
Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 38 ff.,
56 ff.: compare Bennett 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 Aramæans 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_
(Priestly-Code, Jehovist).

In answer to Isaac’s prayer, Rebekah conceives and bears twin children, Esau and Jacob. In the circumstances of their birth (²¹⁻²⁶), and in their contrasted modes of life (²⁷ᐧ ²⁸), Hebrew legend saw prefigured the national characteristics, 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._――verses ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ are taken from Priestly-Code; note
וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת, הוֹלִיד, הָאֲרַמִּי (_bis_), פַּדַּן אֲרָם. To Priestly-Code must also
be referred the chronological notice ²⁶ᵇ, which shows that
an account of the birth of the twins in that source has been
suppressed in favour of Yahwist. There is less reason to
suspect a similar omission of the marriage of Isaac before
verse ²⁰.――The rest of the passage belongs to the composite
work Jehovist. The stylistic criteria (יהוה 21 ²¹ ᵇⁱˢᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³;
עָתַר, ²¹ ᵇⁱˢ; לָֽמָּה־זֶּה, ²²; צָעִיר, ²³) and the resemblance of ²⁴⁻²⁶ to
38²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ point to Yahwist as the leading source of ²¹⁻²⁸; though
Elohistic variants may possibly be detected in ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ (Dillmann,
Gunkel, Procksch, al.). Less certainty obtains with regard
to ²⁹⁻³⁴, which most critics are content to assign to Yahwist
(so Dillmann, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin,
Holzinger, Driver, al.), while others (_Oxford Hexateuch_,
Gunkel, _Students’ Old Testament_. Procksch) assign it to
Elohist because of the allusion in 27³⁶. That reason is not
decisive, and the linguistic indications are rather in favour
of Yahwist (נָא, ³⁰; לָֽמָּה־זֶּה, ³² [Wellhausen _Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_²
36]; על־כן קרא שמו, ³⁰).

=19, 20. Isaac’s marriage.=――Priestly-Code follows Elohist (31²⁰ᐧ ²⁴) in describing Rebekah’s Mesopotamian relatives as _Aramæans_ (compare 28⁵), though perhaps in a different sense. Here it naturally means descendants of ’Ărām, the fifth son of Shem (10²³). That this is a conscious divergence from the tradition of Yahwist is confirmed by 28²: see Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 420 ff.――On _Bĕthû’ēl_, see page 247 above.――_Paddan ’Ărām_] (28²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ 31¹⁸ 33¹⁸ 35⁹ᐧ ²⁶ 46¹⁵ [פַּדָּן alone 48⁷]: LXX Μεσοποταμίας) is Priestly-Code’s equivalent for ’Ăram Nahăraim in Yahwist (24¹⁰); and in all probability denotes the region round Ḥarran (_v.i._).

* * * * *

=19.= ואלה ת׳ יצחק] commonly regarded as the heading of the section
(of Genesis or) of Priestly-Code ending with the death of Isaac
(35²⁹); but see the notes on pages 40 f., 235 f. The use of the
formula is anomalous, inasmuch as the birth of Isaac, already
recorded in Priestly-Code, is included in his own genealogy. It
looks as if the editor had handled his document somewhat freely,
inserting the words יִצְחָק בֶּן־ in the original heading תּוֹלְדֹת אַבְרָהָם]
(compare verse ¹²).――=20.= פדן] Syriac (‡ Syriac word), Arabic
_faddān_ = ‘yoke of oxen’; hence (in Arabic) a definite measure
of land (_jugerum_: compare Lane, 2353 b). A similar sense has
been claimed for Assyrian _padanu_ on the authority of II R. 62,
33 a, b (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 135). On this view
פ׳ ארם would be equivalent to שְׂדֵה אֲרָם = ‘field of Aram’ in Hosea
12¹³. Ordinarily, _padanu_ means ‘way’ (Delitzsch _Assyrisches
Handwörterbuch_, 515 f.); hence it has been thought that
the word is another designation of Ḥarran (see 11³¹), in the
neighbourhood of which a place _Paddānā_ (_vicus prope Ḥarran_:
Robert Payne Smith _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3039) has been known
from early Christian times: Nöldeke, however, thinks this
may be due to a Christian localisation of the biblical story
(_Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 278). Others less plausibly connect
the name with the kingdom of _Patin_, with its centre North of
the Lake of Antioch (Winckler _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 38).

* * * * *

=21‒23. The pre-natal oracle.=――=21.= With the prolonged barrenness of Rebekah, compare the cases of Sarah, and Rachel (29³¹), the mothers of Samson (Judges 13²), Samuel (1 Samuel 1²), and John the Baptist (Luke 1⁷).――_Isaac prayed to Yahwe_] Compare 1 Samuel 1¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ. No miraculous intervention is 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.

Compare the story of Akrisios and Proitus (Apollodorus
_Bibliotheca_ ii. 2. 1 ff.), sons of Abas, king of Argos, who
κατὰ γαστρὸς μὲν ἔτι ὄντες ἐστασίαζον πρὸς ἀλλήλους. The sequel
presents a certain parallelism 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 pages 455 f.). Another parallel is
the Polynesian myth of the twins Tangaroa and Rongo (Cheyne
_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 356).

* * * * *

=21.= עתר] peculiar to Yahwist in Hexateuch: Exodus 8⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ
²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ 9²⁸ 10¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸. In Arabic _‛atr_ and _‛atīrat_ mean animals
slain in sacrifice; hence Hebrew הַעְתִּיר (Hiphil may everywhere
be read instead of Qal) probably referred originally to
sacrifice accompanied by prayer, though no trace of the
former idea survives in Hebrew: “Das Gebet ist der Zweck oder
die Interpretation des Opfers, die Begriffe liegen nahe bei
einander” (Wellhausen 142).

* * * * *

Rebekah, regarding this as a portent, expresses her dismay in words not quite intelligible in the text: _If it_ [is to] _be so, why then am I...?_] _v.i._――_to inquire of Yahwe_] to seek an oracle at the sanctuary.――=23.= The oracle is communicated through an inspired personality, like the Arabic _kāhin_ (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_², 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 27²⁹ᐧ ⁴⁰).

* * * * *

=22.= ויתרצצו] LXX ἐσκίρτων (the same word as Luke 1⁴¹ᐧ ⁴⁴),
perhaps confusing רוץ, ‘run,’ with רצץ, ‘break.’ More correctly,
Aquila συνεθλάσθησαν; Symmachus διεπάλαιον.――אם כן למה זה אנכי] LXX εἰ
οὕτως μοι μέλλει γένεσθαι, ἵνα τί μοι τοῦτο; But the זָה merely
emphasises the interrogative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 136 _c_),
and the latter part of the sentence seems incomplete: Vulgate
_quid necesse fuit concipere?_ Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase).
Graetz supplies הָרָה; Dillmann, Ball, Kittel חַיָּה (compare 27⁴⁶);
Frankenberg (_Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1901, 697)
changes אנכי to אחיה, while Gunkel makes it אֻנָּה לִי (Psalms 91¹⁰),
with זה as subject.――=23.= לְאֹם] a poetic word; in Hexateuch only
27²⁹ (Yahwist).――צעיר] ‘the small[er],’ in the sense of ‘younger,’
is characteristic of Yahwist (19³¹ᐧ ³⁴ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ³⁸ 29²⁶ 43³³, Joshua
6²⁶ [1 Kings 16³⁴]†).

* * * * *

=24‒26. Birth and naming of the twins.=――=24.= Compare 38²⁷⁻³⁰, the only other description of a twin-birth in the Old Testament.――=25.= אַדְמוֹנִי――either _tawny_ or _red-haired_――is a play on the name Edom (see on verse ³⁰); similarly, _all over like a mantle of hair_ (שֶׁעָר) is a play on Sē‛îr, the country of the Edomites (36⁸). It is singular that the name _‛Ēsāw_ itself (on which _v.i._) finds no express etymology.――=26a.= _with his hand holding Esau’s heel_] (Hosea 12⁴) a last effort (verse ²²) to secure the advantage of being born first. There are no solid grounds for thinking (with Gunkel, Luther [_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 128], Nowack, al.) that Hosea 12⁴ᵃ (בבטן עָקַב את־אחיו) presupposes a different version of the legend, in which Jacob actually wrested the priority from his brother (compare 38²⁸ ᶠᐧ). The clause is meant as an explanation of the name ‘Jacob.’

* * * * *

=24.= תּוֹמִים] properly תְּאֹמִים (so _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_), as 38²⁷.――=25.= אַדְמוֹנִי used again only of David,
1 Samuel 16¹² 17⁴². 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’ (LXX πυρράκης, Vulgate _rufus_:
so Gesenius, Tuch, al.). The incongruity of the word with
the name עֵשָׂו creates a suspicion that it may be either a gloss
or a variant from a parallel source (Dillmann): for various
conjectures see Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 217²;
Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1333; Winckler _Altorientalische
Forschungen_, i. 344 f.――עֵשָׂו has no Hebrew etymology. The nearest
comparison is Arabic _’a‛taʸ_ (so most) = ‘hirsute’ (also
‘stupid’), though that would require as strict Hebrew equivalent
עֵשָׁו (Driver). A connexion with the Phœnician Οὐσωος, brother of
_Šamêmrûm_, and a hero of the chase, is probable, though not
certain. There is also a goddess _‛Asît_, figured on Egyptian
monuments, who has been thought to be a female form of Esau
(Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_,
316 f.).――ויקראו] LXX, Peshiṭtå ליקרא, as verse ²⁶; but _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has plural both times. In
any case the subject is indefinite.――=26.= יַֽעֲקֹב is a contraction
of יעקבאל (compare יִפְתָּח, Joshua 15⁴³), Judges 11¹ ᶠᶠᐧ with יִפְתַּח־אֵל,
Joshua 19¹⁴ᐧ ²⁷; יַבְנֶה, 2 Chronicles 26⁶ with יַבְנְאֵל, Joshua 15¹¹)
which occurs (a) as a _place_ name in central Palestine on
the list of Thothmes III. (No 102: _Y‛ḳb’r_);¹ and (b) as a
_personal_ name (_Ya‛ḳub-ilu_)² in a Babylonian contract tablet
of the age of Ḫammurabi. The most obvious interpretation of
names of this type is to take them as verbal sentences, with
’Ēl as subject: ‘God overreaches,’ or ‘follows,’ or ‘rewards,’
according to the sense given to the √ עקב (see Gray, _Studies
in Hebrew Proper Names_, 218).³ They may, however, be nominal
sentences: ‘Ya‛ḳōb is God’ (see Meyer 282); in which case the
meaning of the name יַֽעֲקֹב is pushed a step farther back. The
question whether Jacob was originally a tribe, a deity, or an
individual man, thus remains unsettled by etymology.――At end of
verse, LXX adds Ῥεβέκκα,――an improvement in style.

¹ Meyer _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
vi. 8; _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 251 f.,
281 f.; Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 162 f.; Luther, _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 60 ff.――The name
has since been read by Müller in a list of Ramses II.,
and (defectively written) in one of Ramses III.: see
_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1907,
i. 27.――Questioned by Langdon, _The Expository Times_,
xxi. (1909), page 90.

² Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the
Monuments_, 96, 112. According to Hommel, the contracted
form _Yaḳubu_ also occurs in the Tablets (_ib._ 203¹).

³ In Hebrew the verb (a denominative from עָקֵב, ‘heel’) is only
used with allusion to the story or character of Jacob (27³⁶,
Hosea 12⁴, Jeremiah 9³†: in Job 37⁴ the text is doubtful),
and expresses the idea of insidiousness or treachery. So
עָקֵב (Psalms 49⁶†), עָקֹב (Jeremiah 17⁹), עָקְבָּה (2 Kings 10¹⁹†).
The meanings ‘follow’ and ‘reward’ are found in Arabic
(Brown-Driver-Briggs, 784 a).

* * * * *

=27, 28. Their manner of life.=――=27.= Esau becomes _a man skilled in hunting, a man of the field_] It is hardly necessary to suppose that the phrases are variants from different documents. Though this conception of Esau’s occupation is not consistently maintained (see 33⁹), it has doubtless some ethnographic significance; and game is said to be plentiful in the Edomite country (Buhl, _Edomiter_, 43).――Jacob, on the other hand, chooses the half-nomadic pastoral life which was the patriarchal ideal. אִישׁ תָּם, elsewhere ‘an ethically blameless man’ (Job 1⁸ etc.), here describes the _orderly_, well-disposed _man_ (_Scoticè_, ‘douce’), as contrasted with the undisciplined and irregular huntsman.――=28.= A preparation for chapter 27, which perhaps followed immediately on these two verses. Verse ²⁷, however, is also presupposed by♦

♦ Text missing in original book.

* * * * *

=28.= כִּי צַיִד בְּפִיו] A curious phrase, meaning ‘venison was to his
taste.’ It would be easier to read (with Ball al.) לְפִיו; or an
adjective (טוֹב?) may have fallen out. LXX, Peshiṭtå appear to
have read צֵידוֹ.

* * * * *

=29‒34. Esau parts with the birthright.=――The superiority 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 intentionally indefinite description, the nature of the dish being reserved as a surprise for verse ³⁴.――=30.= _Let me gulp some of the red――that red there!_] With a slight vocalic change (_v.i._), we may render: _some of that red seasoning_ (strictly ‘obsonium’).――_’Ĕdōm_] a play on the word for ‘red’ (אָדֹם). The name is “a memento of the never-to-be-forgotten greed and stupidity of the ancestor” (Gunkel).――=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 בְּכֹרָה denotes the advantages and rights usually
enjoyed by the eldest son, including such things as (a) natural
vigour of body and character (Genesis 49³, Deuteronomy 21¹⁷:
∥ רֵאשִׁית אוֹן), creating a presumption of success in life, (b) a
position of honour as head of the family (Genesis 27²⁹ 49⁸),
and (c) a double share of the inheritance (Deuteronomy 21¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ).
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 (1 Chronicles 5¹ ᶠᐧ). 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 _spiritual_
privilege, or a mystic connexion (such as is suggested in
Hebrews 12¹⁶ ᶠᐧ) between the birthright and the blessing of
chapter 27, is foreign to the spirit of the ancient legends,
which owe their origin to ætiological reflexion on the historic
relations of Israel and Edom. The passage furnishes no support
to the ingenious theory of Jacob’s (_Biblical Archaeology_
46 ff.), that an older custom of “junior right” is presupposed
by the patriarchal tradition.

* * * * *

=29.= ויזד――נזיד] זוּד only here in the literal sense; elsewhere =
‘act presumptuously.’ The derivative נזיד (2 Kings 4³⁸, Haggai 2¹²)
with rare prefix _na_ (common in Assyrian).――=30.= הַלְעִיטֵנִי (ἅπαξ
λεγόμενον)] a coarse expression suggesting bestial voracity;
used in New Hebrew of the feeding of cattle.――האדם האדם] The
repetition of the same word is awkward, even in an expression
of impatient greed. The emendation referred to above consists
in reading the first הָֽאֱדֹם after Arabic _’idām_ = ‘seasoning or
condiment for bread’ (compare verse ³⁴): so Boysen (cited in
Schleusner², i. 969), T. D. Anderson (_ap._ Dillmann). This is
better than (Driver al.) to make the change in both places, LXX
(τοῦ ἑψέματος τοῦ πυρροῦ τούτου) and Vulgate (_de coctione hac
rufa_) seem to differentiate the words.――=31.= כַּיּוֹם] = ‘first of
all,’ as ³³, 1 Samuel 2¹⁶, 1 Kings 1⁵¹ 22⁵ (Brown-Driver-Briggs,
400 b).

* * * * *

=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.――הֹלֵךְ לָמוּת does not mean ‘exposed to death sooner or later’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra, Dillmann, 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.――עֲדָשִׁים (2 Samuel 17²⁸, 23¹¹, Ezekiel 4⁹), still a common article of diet in Egypt and Syria, under the name _‛adas_: the colour is said to be ‘a darkish brown’ (_A Dictionary of the Bible_, 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.