Chapter XXVI (1)

_Isaac and the Philistines_
(Yahwist, Redactor, Priestly-Code).

The chapter comprises the entire cycle of Isaac-legends properly so called; consisting, as will be seen, almost exclusively of incidents already related of Abraham (compare especially chapter 20 f.). The introductory notice of his arrival in Gerar (¹⁻⁶: compare 20¹ ᶠᐧ) is followed by his denial of his marriage with Rebekah (⁷⁻¹¹ ∥ 12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 20² ᶠᶠᐧ), his success in agriculture (¹²⁻¹⁶,――the only circumstance without an Abrahamic parallel), his quarrels with the Philistines about wells (¹⁷⁻²² ∥ 21²⁵ ᶠᐧ), and, lastly, the Covenant of Beersheba, with an account of the naming of the place (²³⁻³³ ∥ 21²²⁻³⁴).――The notice of Esau’s wives (³⁴ ᶠᐧ) is an excerpt from Priestly-Code.

_Source._――The style, except in ³⁴ ᶠᐧ and some easily recognised
redactional patches (¹ᵃ{βγ}ᐧ ²ᵃ{β}ᵇᐧ ³ᵇ⁻⁵ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸: see the notes),
is unmistakably Yahwistic: compare יהוה (²ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵ [even in
the mouth of Abimelech, ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹]); טובת מראה, ⁷ (24¹⁶); השקיף, ⁸;
העתיק, ²² (12⁸); קרא בשם יהוה, ²⁵; אָלָה, ²⁸ (24⁴¹); בְּרוּךְ יהוה, ²⁹ (24³¹).
Some critics find traces of Elohist in ¹ ᶠᐧ, but these are
dubious.――The relation of the passage to other strata of the
Yahwist document is very difficult to determine. On the one hand,
the extremely close parallelism to chapter 20 f. suggests that
it is a secondary compilation based on Jehovist as a composite
work, with the name of Isaac substituted for that of Abraham.
But it is impossible to imagine a motive for such an operation;
and several considerations favour the theory that chapter 26 is
a continuation of the source distinguished as Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ in
the history of Abraham. (1) The Abrahamic parallels all belong
to the Negeb tradition (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ and Elohist); and it
is natural to think that Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, representing the Hebron
tradition, would connect the Negeb narratives with the name of
Isaac (whether Abraham or Isaac was the original hero of these
legends we cannot well ascertain). (2) The language on the whole
confirms this view (compare השקיף, העתיק, קרא בשם י׳, וירא י׳, and all
the phrases of ²⁵ᵃ). (3) The ideal of the patriarchal character
agrees with that which we find in Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ (magnanimity,
peaceableness, etc.).――In any case, it is to be observed that
the chapter stands out of its proper order. The Rebekah of ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ
is plainly not the mother of two grown-up sons, as she is at the
close of chapter 25; and 27¹ is the immediate continuation of
25³⁴ or ²⁸ (see Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und
der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 30).

=1‒6. Isaac migrates to Gerar.=――Cleared of interpolations, the section reads: (¹ᵃ{α}) _There was a famine in the land;_ (¹ᵇ) _and Isaac went to Abimelech, king of the Philistines, to Gerar._ (²ᵃ{α}) _And Yahwe appeared to him and said,_ (³ᵃ) _Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee and bless thee._ (⁶) _So Isaac abode in Gerar._――=1.= Isaac comes probably from Beer Laḥai-roi, 25¹¹.――On _Abimelech_ and _Gerar_, see 20¹ ᶠᐧ. The assumption that Gerar was a Philistine kingdom is an anachronism (see on 10¹⁴), made also in Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (21³²) but not in Elohist.――=3a.= _and bless thee_] a promise fulfilled in Isaac’s successful husbandry (¹² ᶠᶠᐧ), and other tokens of the divine favour (²²ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ ᶠᐧ), with no reference primarily to the blessing of Abraham.

¹ᵃ{βγ} (מלבד――אברהם) is a redactional gloss (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ
or Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ), pointing back to 12¹⁰.――²ᵃ{β}ᵇ (אל־תרד וגו׳)
is obviously inconsistent with ³ᵃ, and is best explained as a
gloss from the same hand as ¹ᵃ{βγ} (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger),
Dillmann, Gunkel, al. consider it a variant from a parallel
narrative of Elohist (compare אשר אמר אליך with 22²), to which
Dillmann quite unnecessarily assigns also ¹ᵃ{α} and ⁶; but
the evidence is too weak to warrant the improbable hypothesis
of a _second_ Elohist version of 20¹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――³ᵇ⁻⁵ an expansion
in the manner of 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸, emphasising the immutability of the
oath to Abraham (see on 15¹⁸), and showing many traces of late
composition.

* * * * *

=3.= הארצות] so verse ⁴; LXX, _Jubilees_ read singular.
The nearest analogies to this use of plural (which is rare
and mostly late) are 1 Chronicles 13², 2 Chronicles 11²³ =
‘districts’ (of Palestine).――האל] see 19⁸.――=4a.= The comparison
with the stars, as 15⁵ 22¹⁷.――=4b, 5= almost verbally identical
with 22¹⁸: note especially the uncommon עקב אשר.――=5b= is made
up of Priestly and Deuteronomic expressions: compare Leviticus
26⁴⁶, Deuteronomy 6² 28⁴⁵ 30¹⁰ etc.――שמר משמרת denotes chiefly
the service of priests in the sanctuary, but is here used in
a wider sense (compare Leviticus 18³⁰ 22⁹, Deuteronomy 11¹,
Joshua 22³, 1 Kings 2³, Malachi 3¹⁴). The expression is highly
characteristic of Priestly-Code (Holzinger _Einleitung in
den Hexateuch_ 344).――אברהם] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX + אָבִיךָ.

* * * * *

=7‒11. Rebekah’s honour compromised.=――=7, 8.= Isaac’s lie (as 12¹³ 20²), and the king’s accidental discovery of it.――_looked out at a window_] possibly into a court of the palace: compare 2 Samuel 11².――מְצַחֵק אֵת] exchanging conjugal caresses (see on 21⁶),――a play on the name Isaac. The verb is nowhere else construed with אֵת.――=9, 10.= Abimelech’s rebuke of Isaac, and the latter’s self-exculpation.――_thou mightest have brought guilt_] Compare 20⁹. It is an instance of the writer’s timid handling of the theme (see below) that no actual complication arises.――=11.= So stern an injunction would have been in place in chapter 12 or chapter 20, but here it is unmotived.

That the three narratives 12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 20, 26⁷⁻¹¹ are variations
of a common theme, appears not only from their close material
resemblance, but also from particular phrases recurrent in each:
_e.g._ אחתי הוא, הרג, מה־זאת עשית לנו, גור, טובת [יפת] מראה, etc. (compare
Kuenen _Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de
verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_ i. 228). Although
many good scholars (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Holzinger, al.) are of
a different opinion, the present passage appears to be the most
colourless and least original form of the tradition. In 12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ
(Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) the leading features――the beauty of the
heroine, the patriarch’s fear for his life, his stratagem, the
plagues on the heathen monarch, his rebuke of the patriarch,
and the rewards heaped on the latter――are combined in a strong
and convincing situation, in which each element stands out in
its full natural significance. In chapter 20 (Elohist), the
connexion of ideas is in the main preserved; though a tendency
to soften the harsher aspects of the incident appears in God’s
communication to Abimelech, in the statement that no actual
harm had come to Sarah, and in the recognition of the half-truth
in Abraham’s account of his relation to Sarah. In 26⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ
(Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) this tendency is carried so far as to obscure
completely the dramatic significance of those features which are
retained. Though Isaac is the guest of Abimelech (verse ¹), it
is only the ‘men of the place’ who display a languid interest in
his beautiful wife: no one wants to marry Rebekah, least of all
the king, who is introduced merely as the accidental discoverer
of the true state of affairs, and is concerned only for the
morality of his subjects. No critical situation arises; and
the exemplary self-restraint manifested by the men of Gerar
affords no adequate basis for the stern injunction of ¹¹,
which would have been appropriate enough in chapter 12 or
chapter 20. It is, of course, impossible to assign absolute
priority in every respect to any one of the three recensions;
but it may reasonably be affirmed that in general their
relative antiquity is represented by the order in which they
happen to stand――Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ, Elohist, Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ.
The transference of the scene from Gerar to Egypt is perhaps
the only point in which the first version is less faithful to
tradition than the other two.――See the elaborate comparison in
Gunkel 197 ff.

* * * * *

=7.= אנשי המקום] compare 29²² 38²², Judges 19¹⁶.――לֵאמֹר] a very
rare and questionable use of the word as a real infinitive
(_dicere_, not _dicendo_). Should אשתי be deleted? _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read אִשְׁתִּי הִיא.――=10.= כמעט]
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _p_.――והבאת] construct perfect; ‘thou
wouldst (in that case) have brought.’――=11.= העם] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX עַמּוֹ.

* * * * *

=12‒16.――Isaac’s successful husbandry.=――=12.= Cultivation on a small scale is still occasionally practised by the Bedouin (see Palmer, _The Desert of the Exodus_ ii. 296). The only other allusions in the patriarchal history are 30¹⁴ 37⁷.――=13‒16.= Isaac’s phenomenal prosperity excites the jealousy of the Philistines, which leads to his enforced departure.――=15.= See on ¹⁸ below.

* * * * *

=13‒16.= Gunkel thinks the verses are a pendant to the Rebekah
incident, corresponding to the gifts of the heathen king (12¹⁶
20¹⁴) and the expulsion of Abraham (12²⁰). It is more natural to
consider ¹² ᶠᶠᐧ the continuation of ⁶; indeed, it might fairly be
questioned whether ⁷⁻¹¹ is not a later insertion, interrupting
the continuity of the main narrative.――=12.= שערים] LXX, Peshiṭtå
wrongly שְׂעֹרִים, ‘barley.’ The word is שֶׂעַר, meaning ‘measure’ or
‘value’ (compare שָׁעַר = ‘reckon,’ in Proverbs 23⁷, with allied
words in Yahwist. Aramaic and New Hebrew; especially New Hebrew
שׁיעור = ‘measure’).――=13.= וילך הלוך וגדל] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _u_.

* * * * *

=17‒22. Isaac’s wells.=――See on 21²⁵ ᶠᐧ.――=17.= Isaac retires to the _Wādī of Gĕrār]_ probably the _Ǧurf el-Ǧerār_, above (South-east) _Umm el-Ǧerār_ (20¹), into which several wādīs converge, including West er-Ruḥaibeh (verse ²²) and West es-Seba‛.――=19, 20.= The first well is named _‛Eseḳ_ (‘annoyance’); the name has not been found.――=21.= _Siṭnāh_ (‘hostility’) is possibly to be sought in the _West Šuṭnet er-Ruḥaibeh_, close to Ruḥaibeh, though verse ²² seems to imply that the places were some distance apart.――=22.= _Rĕḥôbôth_ (‘room’) is plausibly identified with _er-Ruḥaibeh_, in the wādī of the same name, about 20 miles South-west of Beersheba (a description in Palmer, ii. 382 f.).

In the narrative, Isaac himself was represented as the
discoverer of these wells, though another tradition (partially
preserved in 21²⁵ ᶠᐧ) ascribed the discovery and naming of them
to Abraham. Verses ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ are an ancient gloss, inserted to
harmonise the two views by the supposition that the wells had
been stopped up by the Philistines,――a practice frequently
resorted to in desert warfare (2 Kings 3²⁵).

* * * * *

=17.= ויחן] so (of an individual) 33¹⁸ (Elohist).――=18.= בימי]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,
_Jubilees_ עַבְדֵי.――ויסתמום] used in the same sense 2 Kings 3¹⁹ᐧ ²⁵,
2 Chronicles 32³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ³⁰. On the masculine suffix (so verse ¹⁵),
see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 60 _h_, 135 _o_.――=19.= בנחל] LXX +
Γεράρων.――=20.= עשק] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. עסק is common in New Hebrew,
Targum in the sense of ‘be busy, occupied’; in Syrian it means
_durus, asper, molestus, fuit_: hence in Ethiopian _difficilem
se præbuit_.――=21.= LXX prefix וַיַּעְתֵּק מִשָּׁם יצחק] (with following verb
in singular), as verse ²²: compare 12⁸.――=22.= ופרינו] LXX, Vulgate,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ וַיַּפְרֵנוּ, compare 28³.

* * * * *

=23‒25. The theophany at Beersheba.=――=23.= _went up_] though Bīr es-Seba‛ lies considerably lower than er-Ruḥaibeh.――=24.= That an _inaugural_ theophany (see on 12⁷) is meant, is clear from verse ²⁵. According to this narrative, no patriarch had previously visited Beersheba (compare 21³³).――_my servant_] LXX reads ‘thy father.’ Nowhere else in Genesis is Abraham spoken of as the servant of Yahwe.――=25a.= Note the correspondence of the phraseology with 12⁷ ᶠᐧ 13⁴ᐧ ¹⁸.――=25b.= See verse ³².

* * * * *

=24, 25aα= are regarded by Gunkel as an interpolation of
the same character as ³ᵇ⁻⁵; but the linguistic marks of late
authorship which abound in ³ᵇ⁻⁵ are scarcely to be detected here,
and the mention of the altar before the tent is not sufficient
to prove dislocation of the text. Nor is it quite correct to
say that verse ³³ implies a different origin of the sacredness
of Beersheba from ²⁴ ᶠᐧ: the consecration of the sanctuary and
the naming of the place are separate things which were evidently
kept distinct in Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (21³³).――=25.= ויכרו] synonymous
with חָפַר in Numbers 21¹⁸; elsewhere only used of a grave (50⁵) or
pit (Exodus 21³³ etc.).

* * * * *

=26‒33. The treaty with Abimelech.=――=26.= _’Aḥuzzath (v.i.) his friend_] his confidential adviser, or ‘vizier,’――an official title common in Egypt from an early period, and amongst the Ptolemies and Seleucids (1 Maccabees 2¹⁸ 10⁶⁵; compare 2 Samuel 16¹⁶ ᶠᐧ, 1 Kings 4⁵, 1 Chronicles 27³³).――_Pîkōl_] see on 21²².――=27.= See verses ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶.――=28.= The אָלָה is properly the curse invoked on the violation of the covenant; בְּרִית refers to the symbolic ceremony (not here described) by which it was ratified (see on 15¹⁷ ᶠᐧ).――=29.= Abimelech dictates the terms of the covenant: compare 21²³.――=30, 31.= The common meal seems to be a feature of the covenant ceremony (compare 31⁵³ ᶠᐧ), though here the essential transaction takes place on the morning of the following day.――=32, 33.= The naming of the well (²⁵ᵇ). The peculiar form _Šib‛āh_ (_v.i._) is perhaps chosen as a compromise between שְׁבֻעָה, ‘oath’ (as Gunkel points), and שֶׁבַע, the actual name of the place.

It is possible to recognise in these imperfectly preserved
legends a reflexion of historic or pre-historic relations
between nomadic tribes of the Negeb (afterwards incorporated
in Israel) and the settled population of Gerar. The ownership
of certain wells was disputed by the two parties; others were
the acknowledged possession of the Hebrew ancestors. In the
oldest tradition (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) the original purpose of the
covenant of Beersheba still appears: it was to put a stop to
these disputes, and secure the right of Israel at least to the
important sanctuary of Beersheba (21³⁰). In the later variations
this connexion is lost sight of, and the covenant becomes a
general treaty of peace and amity, which may also have had
historic importance for a later period. In Elohist there is
no mention of contested wells at all, nor even a hint that
Abraham had dug the well of Beersheba; while Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ seems
expressly to bar any connexion between the covenant and the
discovery of the well.

* * * * *

=26.= אחזתּ] (for the ending, see Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text
of the Books of Samuel_ 107) has sometimes been mistaken for the
noun meaning ‘possession’ (17⁸), taken in the sense of a _body
holding together_ (see Rashi _ad loc._); so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ סיעת
רחמוהו, ‘_company_ of his friends’; Jerome _collegium amicorum
ejus_; Græcus-Venetus κατοχή τε τοῦ φίλου (Field).――מרע] a rare
word for ‘companion,’ _sodalis_ (Judges 14¹¹ᐧ ²⁰ 15²ᐧ ⁶, 2 Samuel
3⁸, Proverbs 12²⁶(?) 19⁷†), whose use in the story of Samson
suggested the νυμφαγωγὸς of LXX here.――=28.= בינותינו] need not
be deleted (LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, al.). The form בינות (42²³,
Joshua 22³⁴, Judges 11¹⁰, 2 Samuel 21⁷, Jeremiah 25¹⁶, Ezekiel
10²ᐧ ⁶ ᶠᐧ†) is always _two-sided_, and is here resolved into the
commoner בֵּין ... וּבֵין, exactly as 2 Samuel 21⁷. Hence in the first
case “us” means all the parties to the covenant, in the second
only the Philistine representatives.――=29.= תעשֶׁה] On the ־ֵ, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _hh_.――אתה עתה] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ עתה אתה, LXX וע׳ א׳, a more natural order.――=32.=
לו] LXX strangely reads Οὐχ [εὕρομεν ὕδωρ].――=33.= אֹתָהּ] LXX,
Peshiṭtå better שְׁמָהּ.――שִׁבְעָה (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον)] LXX Ὅρκος;
but Aquila, Symmachus πλησμονή, Vulgate _Abundantiam_,
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (שֵׁבְעָה, Ezekiel 16⁴⁹). In spite of the
interchange of sibilants, one is tempted to agree with these
authorities: Jerome pertinently asks: ‘Quæ enim etymologia est,
propterea vocari _juramentum_, quod aquam _non_ (compare LXX)
invenissent?’――שם] LXX, Peshiṭtå prefix קָרָא.

* * * * *

=34, 35. Esau’s Ḥittite wives (Priestly-Code).=――In Priestly-Code, Esau is represented as still living with Isaac at Mamre (35²⁹).――_Ḥittite_ for ‘Canaanite’: see on 23³. It is possible, however, that in the case of Basemath the true text was ‘Ḥivvite’ (so LXX, Peshiṭtå).――On the names, see on 36² ᶠᐧ.

XXVII. 1‒45.
_How Jacob secured his Father’s Blessing_
(Jehovist).

This vivid and circumstantial narrative, which is to be read immediately after 25³⁴ (or 25²⁸), gives yet another explanation of the historical fact that Israel, the younger people, had outstripped Edom in the race for power and prosperity. The clever but heartless stratagem by which Rebekah succeeds in thwarting the intention of Isaac, and diverting the blessing from Esau to Jacob, is related with great vivacity, and with an indifference to moral considerations which has been thought surprising in a writer with the fine ethical insight of Yahwist (Dillmann). It must be remembered, however, that “Yahwist” is a collective symbol, and embraces many tales which sink to the level of ordinary popular morality. We may fairly conclude with Gunkel (272) that narratives of this stamp were too firmly rooted in the mind of the people to be omitted from any collection of national traditions.

_Sources_.――The presence of a dual narrative is rendered
probable by the following _duplicates_ (see Wellhausen _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments_² 34‒36): (a) ³³ᐧ ³⁴ ∥ ³⁵⁻³⁸. In ³⁵ (ויאמר) we are
recalled to the same stage as the ויאמר of ³³; and ³⁴ (Esau’s cry)
carries us forward to the same point as ³⁸.――(b) ²¹⁻²³ ∥ ²⁴⁻²⁷ᵃ:
here again ויאמר commences two sections which must be alternative,
since both lead up to the blessing (ויברכהו).――(c) A less obvious
doublet may be discovered in ¹¹⁻¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ ∥ ¹⁵: in the one case
Jacob is disguised by the skin of the kids, in the other by
wearing Esau’s clothes.――(d) ³⁰ᵃ{α} ∥ ³⁰ᵇ{β}.――(e) ⁴⁴ᵇ ∥ ⁴⁵ᵃ{α}
(to ממך).――The language is predominantly that of Yahwist, with
occasional traces of Elohist; and that the incident was actually
recorded in both these documents appears from chapters 32,
35³ᐧ ⁷. In the parallels just enumerated, however, the stylistic
criteria are hard to trace; and in the attempt to disentangle
them almost everything hangs on the word יהוה in ²⁷. As to (b),
²⁴⁻²⁷ is certainly Yahwist, and ²¹⁻²³ consequently Elohist; it
will follow that in (c) ¹⁵ belongs to Yahwist and ¹¹⁻¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ to
Elohist. With regard to (a), it is almost impossible to decide
which is Yahwist’s variant and which Elohist’s. Gunkel assigns
³⁵⁻³⁸ to Elohist, on the somewhat subtle ground that in Yahwist
(³³ᐧ ²⁷) Isaac is ignorant who it is that has personated Esau,
whereas in Elohist (³⁵ᐧ ²²) he knows very well that it is Jacob
(so _Oxford Hexateuch_, _Students’ Old Testament_). Most critics
have taken the opposite view, but without any decisive positive
reason. See Gunkel page 270 f.; Procksch 19 f.――It is not worth
while to push the precarious analysis further: anything else of
importance may be reserved for the notes.

=1‒5. Isaac’s purpose to bless Esau=: explained by his partiality for his first-born son, and (more naïvely) by his fondness for venison (25²⁸). It is quite contrary to the sense of the narrative to attribute to him the design of frustrating the decree of Providence expressed in the independent legend of 25²³.――=1.= Blindness is spoken of as a frequent concomitant of old age (compare 48¹⁰, 1 Samuel 3², 1 Kings 14⁴, Ecclesiastes 12³: contrast Deuteronomy 34⁷).――=3.= _thy quiver_ (_v.i._) _and thy bow_] the latter, the hunter’s weapon (Isaiah 7²⁴; compare 2 Kings 13¹⁵).――=4.= _that my soul may bless thee_] so ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ³¹. As if the expiring _nephesh_ gathered up all its force in a single potent and prophetic wish. The universal belief in the efficacy of a dying utterance appears often in Old Testament (48¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 50²⁴ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 33, Joshua 23, 2 Samuel 23¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Kings 2¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 2 Kings 13¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=5.= _But Rebekah was listening_] compare 18¹⁰.

The close connexion of the blessing and the eating, which is
insisted on throughout the narrative, is hardly to be explained
as a reward for the satisfaction of a sensual appetite; it
rests, no doubt, on some religious notion which we can no
longer recover. Holzinger compares the physical stimuli by
which prophetic inspiration was induced (compare 1 Samuel
10⁵ ᶠᐧ, 2 Kings 3¹⁵); Gunkel surmises that a sacrificial meal,
establishing communion with the Deity, was originally intended
(compare לפני י׳, verse ⁷: see Numbers 23¹).

* * * * *

=1.= וַתכהין] On _vav consecutive_ in the subordinate clause,
compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 _q_.――The last clause (ויאמר וגו׳)
contains a characteristic formula of Elohist (compare 22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹
31¹¹: so verse ¹⁸), and is probably to be assigned to that
source.――=2.= הנה־נא] Yahwist; see on 12¹¹.――=3.= תְּלִי] (_The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ תליתך): only here, from √
תלה, ‘hang,’ is a more suitable designation of the ‘quiver’ (LXX,
Vulgate, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Abraham Ibn Ezra) than of the ‘sword’
(Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Rashi).――צָֽידָה Kethîb may here be noun of unity
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 122 _t_) = ‘piece of game’ from צָֽיִד (Qĕrê)
(so Tuch, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Gunkel). Elsewhere (42²⁵ 45²¹
etc.) it means ‘provisions,’ especially for a journey. This
may be explained by the fact that game was practically the only
kind of animal food used by the Semites (see _Lectures on the
Religion of the Semites_², 222 f.); but the identity of the √ √
is doubted (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 845 a).――=5.= להביא] LXX לְאָבִיו is
better, unless both words should be read.

* * * * *

=6‒17. Rebekah’s stratagem.=――The mother’s jealousy for her favourite son (25²⁸) is aroused by what she has overheard; and she instantly devises a scheme whose daring and ingenuity illustrate the Hebrew notion of capable and quick-witted womanhood.――=7.= _before Yahwe_] in the solemn consciousness of Yahwe’s presence: see on verse ⁴.――=11‒13= probably belong to Elohist (see above), and may be omitted from the other narrative, with the effect of making Rebekah’s initiative still more apparent: Jacob obeys her without a word.――=11.= _a hairy man_] see 25²⁵. The objection shows just enough shrewdness on Jacob’s part to throw his mother’s resourcefulness into bolder relief.――=13.= _On me be thy curse_] compare 16⁵.――=15.= _the choice clothes_] the festal raiment: the fact that this would have been put on by Esau proves once more that the blessing was a religious ceremony. Since the clothes were in Rebekah’s charge, Esau must (as Holzinger points out) have been still an unmarried man (contrast Priestly-Code 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ).――=16.= goes with ¹¹⁻¹³ (Elohist), and may be removed without breach of continuity.――=17.= Rebekah’s part being now ended, Jacob is left to his own resources.

* * * * *

=6.= בנה] compare בְּנוֹ, verse ⁵; the addition of הַקָּטָן (LXX) is
unnecessary.――=8.= בְּקֹלִי and לַֽאֲשֶׁר וגו׳ may be variants: accusative
to Dillmann שָׁמַע בְּ is characteristic of Elohist, and שׁמע לְ of
Yahwist.――=12.= מתעתע (√ תעע]), properly ‘a stammerer’ (compare
Arabic _ta‛ta‛a_) then ‘a mocker’ (2 Chronicles 36¹⁶); hence
not a mere practical joker (Knobel-Dillmann), but a profaner
of religious solemnities (Holzinger, Gunkel).――והבאתי] Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) (Second person, singular, feminine).――=13.=
אַךְ is given by Dillmann as a mark of Elohist, in distinction
from Yahwist’s רַק (19⁸ 24⁸).――=15.= בֶּגֶד being masculine (except
Leviticus 6²⁰), and חֲמֻדָה in usage a substitute, it is best
to suppose בִּגְדֵי repeated as _nomen regens_ before the genitive
(otherwise Davidson § 27).

* * * * *

=18‒29. Jacob obtains the blessing.=――=20.= _How very quickly thou hast found it, my son!_――] an exclamation rather than a question: the answer being: _Yes, for Yahwe, etc._――הִקְרָה לְפָנַי] caused the right thing to happen, as 24¹² (Yahwist).――=21‒23= may be the direct continuation of ¹⁹ᵃ (Elohist); the clause _and so he blessed him_ must have been followed by the words of blessing.――=24‒27= bring the parallel narrative (Yahwist) up to the same point.――=27a.= The smelling of the garments seems to have a twofold significance: on the one hand it is a final test of Esau’s identity (otherwise the disguise verse ¹⁵ would have no meaning), on the other it supplies the sensuous impression which suggests the words of the blessing ²⁷ᵇ (so Gunkel).

The section, we have seen, is composite (perhaps ¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᵃᐧ ²¹⁻²³ᐧ
²⁸ = Elohist ∥ ¹⁹ᵇᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴⁻²⁷ = Yahwist); in the primary documents
the interview was less complicated, and the movement quicker,
than it now appears: but since neither has been preserved intact,
we cannot tell how long Isaac’s hesitation and Jacob’s suspense
lasted in each case. In Yahwist as it stands, it would seem that
Isaac’s suspicions are first aroused by the promptness of the
supposed hunter’s return, and perhaps only finally allayed by
the smell of Esau’s garments. In Elohist it is the voice which
almost betrays Jacob, and the feel of his arms which saves him
from detection. For details, see the footnotes.

* * * * *

=18.= ויאמר וגו׳ ¹ is probably to be assigned to Elohist for the same
reason as ¹ᵇ, though something similar must have stood in the
other source: Gunkel, however, makes ¹⁹ᵇ the direct sequel of
אל־אביו (ויאמר) in ¹⁸ᵃ (Yahwist), giving ¹⁹ᵃ to Elohist.――ויבא] LXX,
Vulgate, Peshiṭtå וַיָּבֵא (compare ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ³¹).――=23.= ויברכהו] Another
view of the construction, avoiding the division of documents,
in Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 75.
The narrator is supposed to “hasten at once to state briefly
the issue of the whole, and afterwards, as though forgetting
that he had anticipated, proceed to annex the particulars by
the same means” (וַ consecutive). Ewald and Hitzig applied the
same principle to several other passages (see _ib._); but the
explanation seems to me not very natural.――=24.= אַתָּה] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ האתה.――=25.= מציד בני] LXX
מִצֵּידְךָ בְּנִי; but see verse ³¹.

* * * * *

=27b‒29.= The blessing is partly natural (²⁷ᵇᐧ ²⁸), partly political (²⁹), and deals, of course, not with the personal history of Jacob, but with the future greatness of Israel. Its nearest analogies are the blessings on Joseph, Genesis 49²² ᶠᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 33¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ; and it is not improbable that its Elohistic elements (_v.i._) originated in North Israel.――=27b= (Yahwist). _the smell of a rich field_] compare Deuteronomy 33²³ (_v.i._).――=28= (Elohist). _fat places of the earth_] for the image compare Isaiah 5¹ 28¹, Numbers 13²⁰. “Heaven and earth conspire to give him of their best” (Gunkel).――_corn and must_] often combined with ‘oil’ in pictures of agricultural felicity (Deuteronomy 7¹³, Hosea 2⁸ᐧ ²² etc.).――=29aα= (Yahwist). _Peoples ... nations_] compare 25²³. The reference is to the neighbouring nations subdued by David (2 Samuel 8).――=29aβ= (Elohist) resembles a _tribal_ blessing (compare 49⁸). At all events the mention of _brethren_ (plural) shows that the immediate situation is forgotten.――=29b= (Yahwist). Compare 12³.

* * * * *

=27b‒29.= The critical analysis of the blessing, precarious at
the best, depends on such considerations as these: יהוה ²⁷ᵇ points
decisively to Yahwist; האלהים ²⁸, less certainly, to Elohist,
which is confirmed by דגן ותירש (compare ³⁷). ²⁹ᵃ{α} (to לאמים) is
Yahwist because of the last word (25²³); and ²⁹ᵇ because of the
resemblance to 12³. ²⁹ᵃ{β} (from הוה) is Elohist (compare ³⁷):
(so Gunkel). Kautzsch-Socin and Holzinger differ first in
treating ²⁹ᵃ{β}ᵇ as wholly ∥ ²⁹ᵃ{α}, thus assigning ²⁹ᵃ{α} to
Elohist and ᵃ{β} to Yahwist (thus far Procksch agrees with them);
then in the inference that ³⁷ is Yahwist; and, lastly, in the
reflex inference that ²⁸ᵇ is Elohist.――The metrical structure is
irregular. Parallelism appears in ²⁸ᵃ and in ²⁹ throughout. ²⁷ᵇ
falls into three trimeters; but ²⁹ (also Yahwist) can only be
scanned in tetrameters. In Elohist trimeters and tetrameters
are combined. See Sievers, i. 405, 577, ii. 79, 316.――=27b.= שדה]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (ungrammatically)
השדה מלא. The מלא, however, is rendered in LXX, Vulgate, and should
perhaps be retained.――=28.= משׁמני] ∥ מִטַּל, and therefore = שְׁמַנֵּי + מִן
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 20 _m_), from שָׁמָן (³⁹†).――=29.= וישתחוֻ] the
final וּ should be supplied with Qrê and _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ (see next clause).――הֱוֵה = הֱיֵה] (הוא) הוה is the
common Aramaic and New Hebrew form of היה (compare Phœnician הוא =
חָיָה, חֲיָא): in Old Testament Hebrew only here, Isaiah 16⁴, Nehemiah
6⁶, Job 37⁶, Ecclesiastes 2²² 11³†, and (accusative to Exodus
3¹⁴) in the name יהוה. Its occurrence in early Hebrew, as here,
is surprising.――גביר] verse ³⁷†.――לְאַחֶיךָ] LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לְאָחִיךָ,
wrongly.――בני אמך] LXX בּ׳ אָבִיךָ after 49⁸.――On the distributive
singular (אָרוּר, בָּרוּך), see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 _l_.

* * * * *

=30‒40. Esau sues in vain for a blessing.=――=30.= Both Yahwist and Elohist bring out how narrowly Jacob escaped being detected (_v.i._). =31b.= Esau’s address (jussives) is if anything a little more deferential than Jacob’s (verse ¹⁹).――=33.= _Who, then, is he...?_] The words express but a momentary uncertainty; before the sentence is finished Isaac knows on whom the blessing has fallen. The clause is a real parallel to ³⁵, but a difference of conception is scarcely to be thought of (Gunkel: see above).――_and blessed he shall be_] Not that Isaac now acquiesces in the ruling of Providence, and _refuses_ to withdraw the blessing; but that such an oracle once uttered is in its nature irrevocable.――=34.= _bless me too_] parallel to the same words in ³⁸. Here Yahwist’s narrative breaks off, and ³⁵ (Elohist) resumes from the standpoint of ³².――=36.= _Is it because he was named Overreacher_]――that he must always be overreaching me?――Note the word-play ׃בְּכֹרָתִי: בִּרְכָתִי.――=37.= Compare ²⁹ᵃ{β}ᐧ ²⁸ᵇ (Elohist). All that makes a blessing――political supremacy, and material wealth――has been given away; what remains for Esau?――=38.= _Is that the only blessing thou hast?_] That the blessing can be revoked, Esau does not imagine; but he still hopes that a second (inferior) blessing may be his.――_lifted up ... wept_] corresponding to ³⁴ᵃ. “Those tears of Esau, the sensuous, wild, impulsive man,――almost like the cry of some ‘trapped creature,’ are among the most pathetic in the Bible” (Davidson, _Hebrews_, 242).――=39, 40a.= His importunity draws forth what is virtually a curse, though couched in terms similar to those of verse ²⁹:

_Away from the fat places of the earth shall thy dwelling be;
And away from the dew of heaven above!_

The _double entendre_ in the use of מִן has misled Vulgate and some commentaries into thinking this a _replica_ of the blessing of Jacob (compare Nöldeke _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1184). Compare 40¹³ with 40¹⁹.――=40a.= _live by thy sword_] by raids on neighbouring territory, plunder of caravans, etc.¹――_serve thy brother_] fulfilled in the long subjection of Edom to Israel, from the time of David to that of Joram (2 Kings 8²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), or even Ahaz (16⁶).――=40b.= The prosaic form suggests that this may be a later addition dating from after the emancipation of Edom (Holzinger, Gunkel).――_break his yoke_] a common figure: Jeremiah 2²⁰ 5⁵ 28²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ¹¹ 30⁸, Leviticus 26¹³, Isaiah 9³ etc.

¹ Compare Josephus on the Idumæans: θορυβῶδες καὶ ἄτακτον
ἔθνος αἰεί τε μετέωρον πρὸς τὰ κινήματα καὶ μεταβολαῖς
χαῖρον κτλ. (_War of the Jews_, iv. 231), and φύσει τε
ὠμότατοι φονεύειν ὄντες (_ib._ 310). Compare Diodorus
ii. 48.

The territory of Edom is divided into two parts by the Arabah;
that to the East is described by Strabo (XVI. iv. 21) as χώρα
ἔρημος ἡ πλείστη καὶ μάλιστα ἡ πρὸς Ἰουδαίᾳ. Modern travellers,
however, speak of it as extremely fertile (Robinson, _Biblical
Researches in Palestine_, ii. 154; Palmer, _The Desert of the
Exodus_ ii. 430 f.; compare Buhl, _Edomiter_, 15 f.). Buhl
accordingly thinks the curse refers only to the barren plateau
West of the Arabah; and this is perhaps better than (with
Nöldeke, Driver) to assimilate the terms of the blessing and
the curse.

It is probable that Yahwist’s narrative contained a form of the
curse on Esau, but whether any part is preserved in ³⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ is
doubtful. ³⁹ is certainly from the same source as ²⁸ (Elohist);
with regard to ⁴⁰ᵃ the question stands open.――On the metre,
see again Sievers, i. 404 f., ii. 78 f., 317. Ball’s denial of
metrical form is based wholly on the doubtful ⁴⁰ᵇ.

* * * * *

=30a= contains two variants, of which the second is connected
syntactically with ³⁰ᵇ. Since the form of ᵃ resembles 18³³
24²² 43² (all Yahwist), we may assign this to Yahwist, and
the rest of the verse to Elohist.――=31.= יָקֻם] Pt. rather יָקֹם
(jussive).――=33.= מִכֹּל] Kautzsch-Socin conjecture אָכֹל (emphatic
infinitive absolute).――א׳ גם ברוך יהיה] The emendation of Hitzig
(Olshausen, Ball) וַיְהִי: אֲבָ׳ גַּם בָּרוֹךְ is hardly suitable: such a sentence
would require to be preceded by another action, of which it
was an aggravating or supplementary circumstance (compare 31¹⁵
46⁴, Numbers 16¹³). It is better (with _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_) to read וְגַם, and (with LXX) to _insert_ וַיְהִי at
the beginning of ³⁴.――=36.= הכי] compare 29¹⁵, 2 Samuel 9¹ (23¹⁹
?), Job 6²²†. The rendering above, ‘is it that?’ etc., satisfies
every case (see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 472 a), and is simpler
than that given in Gesenius-Kautzsch § 150 _e_.――Holzinger (so
Gunkel) thinks ³⁶ᵃ a redactional expansion; but it has to be
considered whether ³⁶ᵇ (∥ ³⁸ᵃ{α}) is not rather a fragment
of Yahwist.――=38.= ברכני גם אני אבי] = ³⁴ᵇ (Yahwist). On the syntax
of אני, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 _e_.――וַיִּשָּׂא וגו׳] LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ
omitted, but MSS and daughter-Versions retain, some with the
addition κατανυχθέντος δὲ Ἰσαακ (וַיִּדֹּם יִצְחָק).――=40.= חָיָה עַל] compare
Deuteronomy 8³, Ezekiel 33¹⁹.――תָּרִיד (Jeremiah 2³¹, Hosea 12¹ [?],
Psalms 55³, Judges 11³⁷ [emphatic]†) probably connected with
Arabic _rāda_, ‘go to and fro’ (Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 539 f.):
‘when thou becomest restive.’ _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ תאדר, LXX καθέλῃς = תֹּורִיד.

* * * * *

=41‒45. Esau’s purpose of revenge.=――=41.= Esau _cherished enmity_ (50¹⁵) against Jacob.――_the days of mourning_ (50¹⁰)] a period of seven days, within which Esau hoped to accomplish his revenge.――=42.= Thy brother _is going to take satisfaction of thee_ (Isaiah 1²⁴, Ezekiel 5¹³) _by killing thee_.――=44, 45.= _a few days ... till he forget_] reckoning on Esau’s well-known instability, and at the same time making light of the trial of separation.――_bereaved of you both_] The writer has in view the custom of blood-revenge (compare 2 Samuel 14⁷), though in the case supposed there would be no one to execute it.

* * * * *

=43.= ברח־לך] LXX + εἰς τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν.――=44 f.= אחדים] as
29²⁰, Daniel 11²⁰; contrast Genesis 11¹.――עַד אשר תשוב and עד־שוב
are obviously doublets, though there are no data for assigning
either to its proper source. LXX runs both together: ἕως τοῦ
ἀποστρέψαι τὸν θυμὸν καὶ τὴν ὀργὴν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου.

* * * * *

XXVII. 46‒XXVIII. 9.
_Isaac’s Charge to Jacob_
(Priestly-Code).

This short section records the only action attributed to Isaac in the Priestly Code. Two facts are taken over from the earlier tradition (Jehovist): Isaac’s blessing of Jacob, and Jacob’s visit to Mesopotamia. But the unedifying stories of Jacob’s treachery, which were the essential link of connexion between them, are here omitted; and a new motive is introduced, viz., the inadmissibility of intermarriage with the inhabitants of Canaan. By transgressing this unwritten law, Esau forfeits his title to the ‘blessing of Abraham,’ which is thus transferred to Jacob; and Jacob’s flight is transformed into an honourable mission in search of a wife. The romantic interest of Jacob’s love-story (chapter 29) is largely discounted by this prosaic representation of the course of events (compare Gunkel 341).

Marks of Priestly-Code’s style are abundant: אֵל שֶׂדַּי, ³; אֱלֹהִים ⁴;
הָֽאֲרַמִּי, ⁵; פַּדַּן אֲרָם, ²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷; פָּרָה וְרָבָה, ³; אֶרֶץ מְגֻרִים ⁴; בְּנוֹת כְּנַעַן ¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸
(Yahwist בּ׳ הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי, 24³ᐧ ³⁷); קְהַל עַמִּים, ³.

=46.= is an amplification of 26³⁵ (מֹרַת רוּחַ), but attributes to Rebekah an initiative more in the spirit of Jehovist than of Priestly-Code. It may have been supplied by Redactor to facilitate the transition from chapter 27 to 28 (_v.i._).――=XXVIII. 1.= The language seems modelled on 24³ᐧ ³⁷.――=2.= _thy mother’s father_] The earlier affinity between the two families is again ignored by Priestly-Code: see on 25¹⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=4.= _the blessing_ (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå ‘blessings’) _of Abraham_] Compare 17⁸. Whereas in Jehovist, Isaac is the inspired author of an original blessing, which fixes the destiny of his descendants, in Priestly-Code he simply transmits the blessing attached to the covenant with Abraham.――=9.= _went to Ishmael_] Not to dwell with him permanently, but to procure a wife (see 36⁶ ᶠᐧ). It is undoubtedly assumed that Ishmael was still alive (Dillmann), in spite of the chronological difficulties raised by Delitzsch.

* * * * *

=46.= The objections to assigning the verse to Priestly-Code
(Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.)
are perhaps not decisive. If Massoretic Text be right, בנות חת
agrees in substance with 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ, though in 28¹ ᶠᶠᐧ Priestly-Code
consistently uses ב׳ כנען. LXX, however, omits the words
מִבְּנוֹת־חֵת כָּאֵלֶּה.――=2.= פדנה] (so ⁵ᐧ ⁷) compare Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 90 _i_.――=3.= קהל עמים] 35¹¹ 48⁴ (Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 23²⁴
32³; = הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם 17⁴ ᶠᐧ. In spite of Deuteronomy 33³ (Dillmann),
the phrase cannot well denote the tribes of Israel. It seems
to correspond to Yahwist’s ‘In thee shall _all nations_,’
etc. (12³ etc.), and probably expresses some sort of Messianic
outlook.――=7.= ואל־אמו] perhaps a gloss suggested by 27⁴³ ᶠᐧ
(Dillmann al.).――=9.= אל־ישמעאל] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ omitted.――מַֽחֲלַת] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (compare
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ); see on 36³.

* * * * *

XXVIII. 10‒22.
_Jacob at Bethel_
(Jehovist).

On his way to Ḥarran, Jacob passes the night at Bethel, where the sacredness of the ‘place’ is revealed to him by a dream of a ladder leading from earth to heaven. Awaking, he consecrates the stone on which his head had lain, as a ‘house of God,’――at the same time naming the place Bethel,――and vows to dedicate a tithe of all he has, in the event of his safe return.

_Analysis._――The section consists of a complete Elohistic
narrative (¹¹ ᶠᐧ ¹⁷⁻²²), with a Yahwistic insertion (¹³⁻¹⁶). For
Elohist, compare אלהים; ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁰; מַצֵּבָה, ¹⁸ᐧ ²²; the dream, ¹²; the
tithe, ²²; and the retrospective references in 31¹³ 35³ᐧ ⁷. For
Yahwist, יהוה ¹³ ⁽ᵇⁱˢ⁾ᐧ ¹⁶; נִצָּב עַל ¹³, and the resemblances to 12³ᐧ ⁷
13¹⁵ ᶠᐧ 18¹⁸ 22¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 26²⁴ 32¹³. To Yahwist belong, further, ¹⁰
(חָרָֽנָה), and (if genuine) ²¹ᵇ, though the latter is more probably
interpolated. ¹⁹ᵃ breaks the connexion of ¹⁸ and ²⁰, and _may_
be taken from Yahwist; ¹⁹ᵇ is an explanatory gloss. (So nearly
all recent critics.) Kuenen (_Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar
het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_
i. 145, 247) considers ¹³⁻¹⁶ a redactional addition to Elohist,
similar to 22¹⁴⁻¹⁸, etc., on the ground that Yahwist attributes
the inauguration of the worship at Bethel to Abraham (12⁸), and
nowhere alludes to the theophany here recorded (so Meyer, _Die
Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 236³). But (to say nothing
of ¹⁹ᵃ) the parallelism of ¹⁶ and ¹⁷ appears to prove a real
amalgamation of primary sources (Dillmann). Gunkel regards ¹⁴
as secondary, on account of its stereotyped phraseology.

=10‒12= (Elohist). =Jacob’s dream.=――=11.= _he lighted upon the place_] _i.e._, the ‘holy place’ of Bethel (see 12⁶), whose sanctity was revealed by what followed.――_he took_ [at haphazard] _one of the stones of the place_] which proved itself to be the abode of a deity by inspiring the dream which came to Jacob that night.――=12.= _a ladder_] or ‘stair’ (the word only here). The origin of the idea is difficult to account for (see on verse ¹⁷). Its permanent religious significance is expressed with profound insight and truth in John 1⁵¹.――_angels of God_] So (in plural) only in Elohist (compare 32²) in the Hexateuch. As always in Old Testament, the angels are represented as wingless beings (compare Enoch lxi. 1).

In verse ¹¹ the rendering ‘a certain place’ would be
grammatically correct (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _r_); but it
destroys the point of the sentence, which is that night overtook
the patriarch just at the sacred spot (see Exodus 3⁵). The
idea expressed by the primitive form of the legend is that the
inherent sanctity of the place, and in particular of the stone,
was unknown till it was discovered by Jacob’s dream. It is very
probable, as Holzinger suggests, that this points to an ancient
custom of incubation at Bethel, in which dream-oracles were
sought by sleeping with the head in contact with the sacred
stone (see Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 475 f.).

* * * * *

=11.= מראשתיו] Accusative of place (literally ‘at his head-place’),
as 1 Samuel 19¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ 26⁷ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶, 1 Kings 19⁶.――=12.= ויחלם והנה] The
usual vivid formula in relating a dream: 37⁷ (LXX) ⁹ 40⁹ 41¹,
Judges 7¹³, Isaiah 29⁸.

* * * * *

=13‒16= (Yahwist). =The promise.=

In place of the vision of the ladder, which in Elohist
constitutes the whole revelation, Yahwist records a personal
appearance of Yahwe, and an articulate communication to the
patriarch. That it was a nocturnal theophany (as in 26²⁴)
appears from ¹⁶ᵃ{α}, as well as the word שֹׁכֵב in ¹³. The promise
is partly addressed to Jacob’s special circumstances (¹³ᐧ ¹⁵),
partly a renewal of the blessing of Abraham (¹⁴). The latter is
not improbably a later amplification of the former (see above).

=13.= _Yahwe stood by him_ (_v.i._), and announced Himself as one with the God of his fathers. This unity of Yahwe amidst the multiplicity of His local manifestations is a standing paradox of the early religion of Israel: compare verse ¹⁶.――_the land whereon thou liest_] a description peculiarly appropriate to the solitary and homeless fugitive who had not where to lay his head.――=14.= Compare 13¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 22¹⁷ ᶠᐧ 26⁴ᐧ ²⁴ 32¹³.――On ¹⁴ᵇ see the note on 12³.――=16.= _Yahwe is in this place, etc._] The underlying feeling is not joy (Dillmann), but fear, because in ignorance he had treated the holy place as common ground (Targum ᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ). The exclamation doubtless preserves an echo of the local tradition, more forcibly represented in Elohist (verse ¹⁷). It is the only case in Genesis where a theophany occasions surprise (compare Exodus 3³).

* * * * *

=13.= נצב עליו] 18² 24¹³ 45¹ (all Yahwist). LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå
take סֻלָּם as antecedent to the suffix; but the idea would have
been expressed otherwise (מִמַּעַל לוֹ), and the translation loses
all its plausibility when the composition of documents is
recognised.――Before הארץ, LXX inserts μὴ φοβοῦ.――=14.= כעפר הארץ]
LXX ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, after 32¹³ 41⁴⁹.――ופרצת] LXX וּפָרַץ: for
the word――properly ‘break through’ [bounds],――compare 30³⁰ᐧ ⁴³,
Exodus 1¹², Isaiah 54³ etc.――=15.= בכל] LXX + הַדָּרָךְ.

* * * * *

=17‒19. Consecration and naming of the place.=――=17= follows verse ¹² (Elohist) without sensible breach of continuity; even the mention of Jacob’s awaking (¹⁶) is not absolutely indispensable (see ¹⁸). The impression of fear is far more powerfully expressed than in Yahwist; the place is no ordinary _ḥarām_, but one superlatively holy, the most sacred spot on earth. Only a North Israelite could have written thus of Bethel.――_a house of God ... the gate of heaven_] The expressions rest on a materialisation of the conception of worship as spiritual intercourse between God and man.

The first designation naturally arises from the name _Bêth-’ēl_,
which (as we see from verse ²²) was first applied to the sacred
stone, but was afterwards extended to the sanctuary as a whole.
When to this was added the idea of God’s dwelling in heaven,
the earthly sanctuary became as it were the entrance to the true
heavenly temple, with which it communicated by means of a ladder.
We may compare the Babylonian theory of the temple-tower as the
means of ascent to the dwelling-place of the gods in heaven (see
page 226 above). It is conceivable that the ‘ladder’ of Bethel
may embody cosmological speculations of a similar character,
which we cannot now trace to their origin. The Egyptian theology
also knew of a ‘ladder’ by which the soul after death mounted
up to ‘the gate of heaven’ (Erman, _A Handbook of Egyptian
Religion_ 96). Whether it has any connexion with the _sillu_,
or decorated arch over a palace gate, depicted in _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 13, remains doubtful.
That the image was suggested by physical features of the
locality――a stony hillside rising up in terraces towards
heaven――seems a fanciful explanation to one who has not visited
the spot; but the descriptions given of the singular freak of
nature which occurs near the summit of the slope to the north
of _Beitīn_ (“huge stones piled one upon another to make columns
nine or ten feet or more in height ...”) lend some plausibility
to the conjecture (see Peters, _Early Hebrew Story_, 110 ff.).

=18.= Jacob set up the stone, whose mystic properties he had discovered, as a _maẓẓēbāh_, or sacred pillar (_v.i._), and _poured oil on the top of it_ (35¹⁴), in accordance with a custom widely attested in ancient and modern times (see page 380).――=19a= gives Yahwist’s account of the naming of the place. If a similar notice occurred in Elohist (as seems implied in 31¹³ 35³), it would naturally have stood later.――=19b= is usually considered a gloss. From Joshua 16² (18¹³) it appears that _Lûz_ was really distinct from Bethel, but was overshadowed by the more famous sanctuary in the neighbourhood.

* * * * *

=18.= מַצֵּבָה] (‘thing _set up_,’ Arabic _nuṣb_, Phœnician מצבת) is
the technical name of the sacred monolith which was apparently
an adjunct of every fully equipped Canaanite (or Phœnician) and
early Hebrew sanctuary (see Vincent, _Canaan_, 96, 102 f., 140).
Originally a fetish, the supposed abode of a spirit or deity,――a
belief of which there are clear traces in this passage,――it came
afterwards to be regarded as a vague symbol of Yahwe’s presence
in the sanctuary, and eventually as the memorial of a theophany
or other noteworthy occurrence. In this harmless sense the word
is freely used by Elohist (31¹³ᐧ ⁴⁵ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵² 33²⁰ [emphatic] 35¹⁴,
Exodus 24⁴); but not by Yahwist, who never mentions the object
except in connexion with Canaanitish worship (Exodus 34¹³).
But that the emblem retained its idolatrous associations in
the popular religion is shown by the strenuous polemic of the
prophets and the Deuteronomic legislation against it (Hosea
10¹ ᶠᐧ, Micah 5¹², Deuteronomy 12³ etc., especially 16²² [compare
Leviticus 26¹]); and Yahwist’s significant silence is probably
an earlier indication of the same tendency. It is only at a very
late period that we find the word used once more without offence
(Isaiah 19¹⁹). See Driver on Deuteronomy 16²¹ ᶠᐧ; _Lectures
on the Religion of the Semites_², 204 ff., 456 f.; Moore in
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 2974 ff.; Whitehouse in _A Dictionary
of the Bible_, iii. 879 ff.――וַיִּצֹּק] On this, the usual form, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 71.――=19.= ואולם] A strong adversative, found
in Pentateuch only 48¹⁹, Exodus 9¹⁶, Numbers 14²¹. For ואו׳ לוז,
LXX has καὶ Οὐλαμμαύς; compare Judges 18²⁹ (LXX).――לוז] 35⁶ 48³,
Joshua 16² 18¹³, Judges 1²³†. The name Λουζὰ appears to have
been known in the time of Eusebius (_Onomastica Sacra_, 135¹);
and Müller (_Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_,
165) thinks it may be identical with _Ruṣa_ on Egyptian
inscriptions.

* * * * *

=20‒22= (Elohist). =Jacob’s vow.=――The vow in Old Testament “consists essentially of a solemn promise to render God some service, in the event of some particular prayer or wish being granted” (Driver);¹ hence it falls into two parts: a condition (²⁰ ᶠᐧ), and a promise (²²).――=20, 21a.= The conditions correspond with the divine promise in ¹⁵ (Yahwist)――(a) the presence of God; (b) protection; (c) safe return――except as regards the stipulation for _bread to eat and raiment to wear_. The separation of sources relieves Jacob from the suspicion of questioning the sincerity of an explicit divine promise. On =21b=, _v.i._――=22.= The promise. _this stone ... shall be_ (LXX adds _to me_) _a house of God_] _i.e._ (in the view of the writer), a place of worship. It is to be noted that this reverses the actual development: the stone was _first_ the residence of the _numen_, and _afterwards_ became a maẓẓēbāh.――=22b.= He will pay a tithe of all his possessions. This and Amos 4⁴ are the only pre-Deuteronomic references to the tithe (compare 14²⁰).

¹ But Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 190) remarks
of the Arabian custom: “Die Araber geloben nicht _in
eventum_: wenn der und der Fall eintritt, so will ich das
tun; sondern sie übernehmen durch das Gelübde eine absolut
bindende Pflicht.”

In its present setting the above narrative forms the transition
link between the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban cycle of legends.
In substance it is, we can hardly doubt, a modification of the
cultus-legend of Bethel (now _Beitīn_, situated on an eminence
about 10 miles North of Jerusalem, a little East of the road to
Nābulus), the founding of which was ascribed to the patriarch
Jacob. The concrete features which point to a local origin――the
erection of the maẓẓebāh, the ladder, the gate of heaven,
and the institution of the tithe――are all indeed peculiar to
the account of Elohist, which obviously stands nearer to the
sources of the native tradition than the stereotyped form of
the theophany given by Yahwist. From Elohist we learn that
the immemorial sanctity of Bethel was concentrated in the
sacred stone which was itself the original _Bêth-’ēl_, i.e. the
residence of a god or spirit. This belief appears to go back
to the primitive stone-worship of which traces are very widely
diffused over the surface of the globe.¹ The characteristic rite
of anointing the stone, originally perhaps a sacrifice to the
indwelling _numen_, was familiar to classical writers.² The most
instructive parallel is the fact mentioned by Pausanias (x. 24,
6), that on a small stone in the sanctuary of Delphi oil was
poured every day: we may conjecture that a similar practice
was kept up at Bethel long after its original significance
was forgotten. Though the monolith of Bethel is not elsewhere
explicitly referred to in Old Testament, we may assume that,
stripped of its pagan associations and reduced to the rank of
a _maẓẓebāh_, it was still recognised in historic times as the
chief religious symbol of that great centre of Hebrew worship.

¹ See Tylor, _Primitive Culture_³ ii. 160 ff.; Frazer,
_Pausanias’s Description of Greece_ iv. 154 f., _Adonis_,
21; _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 204 ff.,
232 f. The wide distribution of these sacred objects seems
fatal to the theory of Lagrange, that they were miniature
reproductions of the Babylonian temple-towers, which
again were miniature symbols of the earth conceived as
a mountain,――a difficulty of which the author himself is
conscious (_Études_², 192 ff.).

² On anointed stones (λίθοι λιπαροί, ἀληλιμμένοι, _lapides
uncti, lubricati_, etc.), see Clement of Alexandria
_Stromata_ vii. 4, 26; and the remarkable statements
of Theophrastus, _Characters_ 16; Lucian, _Alexander_,
30; and Arnobius, _Adversus Gentes_, i. 39,――quoted by
Frazer, _Pausanias’s Description of Greece_ v. 354.――For
Assyriological parallels see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
i. 44 f., ii. 113, 151, 261.――A curious development of the
ancient belief appears in the name Βαίτυλος, Βαιτύλιον,
_Betulus_, applied to small stones (aerolites?), supposed
to be self-moving and endowed with magical properties, which
played a considerable part in the private superstitions of
the beginning of the Christian era (Eusebius _Præparatio
Evangelica_ i. 10, 18; Photius, _Bibliotheca_ [Migne, ciii.
1292 f.]; Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, xxxvii. 135, etc.).
The existence of a Canaanitish deity _Bait-ili_ (who can
only be regarded as a personification of the temple or the
sacred stone) is proved by unimpeachable Assyriological
evidence (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 437
f.; Lagrange, _l.c._ 196). Since Βαίτυλος is also the name
of a god in Philo-Byblius, it seems unreasonable to doubt
the etymological and material connexion between the ancient
Semitic בֵּית־אֵל and the portable betyl of the Græco-Roman
period, which was so named as the residence of a spirit;
but see the important article of Moore, _Journal of the
Archæological Institute of America_, vii. (1903), No. 2,
page 198 ff.

* * * * *

=21.= ושבתי] LXX καὶ ἀποστρέψῃ με, as verse ¹⁵.――=21b= can with
difficulty be assigned either to the protasis or to the apodosis
of the sentence. The word יהוה shows that it does not belong to
Elohist; and in all probability the clause is to be omitted as
a gloss (Dillmann al.). The apodosis then has the same unusual
form as in 22¹.

* * * * *

XXIX. 1‒30.
_Jacob’s Marriage with Laban’s Daughters_
(Jehovist, Priestly-Code).

Instead of spending a few days (27⁴⁴) as Laban’s guest, Jacob was destined to pass 20 years of his life with his Aramæan kinsman. The circumstances which led to this prolonged exile are recorded in the two episodes contained in this section; viz. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel at the well (¹⁻¹⁴), and the peculiar conditions of his marriage to Leah and Rachel (¹⁵⁻³⁰). The first, a purely idyllic scene reminding us of 24¹¹⁻³³ and Exodus 2¹⁵⁻²², forms a pleasing introduction to the cycle of Jacob-Laban narratives, without a trace of the petty chicanery which is the leading motive of that group of legends.¹ In the second, the true character of Laban is exposed by the unworthy trick which he practises on Jacob; and the reader’s sympathies are enlisted on the side of Jacob in the trial of astuteness which is sure to ensue.

¹ Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ thinks it necessary to introduce a hint of
the coming rivalry into the conversation between Jacob and
Rachel (verse ¹³).