Chapter XX · Abraham and Sarah at the Court of Gerar (Elohist).

The chapter deals with an incident closely similar to that recorded in 12^10‒20. It is indeed impossible to doubt that the two are variants of the same tradition; a view which is confirmed rather than shaken by Strack’s enumeration of petty differences. A close comparison (see page 364 f. below) appears to show that the passage before us is written from a more advanced ethical standpoint than that represented by chapter 12: note the tendency to soften the harsher features of the incident (^{4. 6. 16}), and to minimise the extent of Abraham’s departure from strict veracity.

Source.—The narrative is the first continuous excerpt from Elohist; and contains several stylistic and other peculiarities of that document: especially [הָ]אֱלֹהִים, ^{3. 6. 11. 13. 17} (¹⁸ יהוה is a gloss); אָמָה (Yahwist שִׁפְחָה), ¹⁷; לֵבָב (Yahwist לב), ⁵; see also the notes on נִקָּיוֹן, ⁵; אָמַר אָל־, ^{2. 13}; נָתַן לְ, ⁶; אָמְנָה, ¹² (compare Dillmann 279; Holzinger 159; Gunkel 193).—The appearing of God in a dream is characteristic of Elohist; and the conception of Abraham as a prophet (⁷) is at least foreign to the original Yahwist (but see on 15¹). Another circumstance proving the use of a source distinct from Yahwist^Hebron or Priestly-Code is that Sarah is here conceived as a young woman capable of inspiring passion in the king (contrast 18¹² 17¹⁷). Lastly, it is to be observed that chapter 20 is the beginning of a section (20‒22) mainly Elohistic, representing a cycle of tradition belonging to the Negeb and, in particular, to Beersheba.

1, 2. Introductory notice.—The method of the narrator, Gunkel points out, is to let the story unfold itself in the colloquies which follow, verses ^{1 f.} containing just enough to make these intelligible.—1. the land of the Negeb] see on 12⁹.—between Ḳādēsh (14⁷) and Shûr (16⁷) would be in the extreme South of the Negeb, if not beyond its natural limits. The words וַיָּגָר בִּגְרָר (note the paronomasia) are not a nearer specification of the previous clause, but introduce a new fact,—a further stage of the patriarch’s wanderings. There is therefore no reason to suppose that Gĕrār lay as far South as Ḳadesh (v.i.).—2. The bareness of the narration is remarkable, and was felt by the Greek translators to be wanting in lucidity (v.i.).—Abimelech, king of Gĕrār] אֲבִימֶלֶךְ = ‘Milk is [my] father,’ is a genuine Canaanite name, compounded with the name of the god Milk (see Baethgen Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins 37 ff.). It occurs as the name of the governor of Tyre (Abi-milki) in the Tel-Amarna Tablets (149‒156). There is no trace here of the anachronism which makes him a Philistine prince (chapter 26); Gerar is an independent Canaanite kingdom.—took Sarah] sc. as wife; the same ellipsis as 19¹⁴.

1. וַיִּסַּע] see 11².—אַרְצָה הַנֶּגֶב] אֶרֶץ הַנּ׳ only 24⁶², Joshua 15¹⁹, Judges 1¹⁵ (Yahwist), Numbers 13²⁹ (Elohist?).—גְּרָר] (10¹⁹ 26^{1. 6. 17} [נַחַל גְּרָר], ^{20. 26}, 2 Chronicles 14^{12 f.}†) LXX Γεραρα, Peshiṭtå ; commonly identified, on the authority of Onomastica Sacra, 240^{28 ff.} (ἀπέχουσα Ἐλευθεροπόλεως σημείοις κε πρὸς νότον), with the modern Umm Ǧerār (‘place of water-pots’), 6 miles South-south-east of Gaza (so Rowlands, Holy City, i. 464; Robinson [who did not find the name], Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 43 f. [compare i. 189], Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). This suits 26¹ (according to which it was in Philistine territory), 10¹⁹ and 2 Chronicles 14¹³; but hardly 26^{17 ff.}, and it is certainly inconsistent with the notice בֵּין קָדֵשׁ וּבֵין שׁוּר. There happens to be a Wādī Ǧerūr, approximately 13 miles South-west of Ḳadesh, which exactly agrees with this description; and so Trumbull (Kadesh-Barnea 62 f., 255) and others have decided that this must be the biblical Gerar, while others think there may have been two places of the name (Cheyne Encyclopædia Biblica, ii. 1705 f.). The question really turns on 26^{17. 21 f.}: so far as the present reference is concerned, we have seen that the argument rests on a misconception; and it is not even necessary to assume (with Kautzsch-Socin) that ^1a is a redactional clause, or (with Holzinger, Gunkel) that part of Elohist’s narrative has been suppressed between ^1a and ^1b. It is true that מִשָּׁם has no antecedent in Elohist, and it is, of course, conceivable that it was written by Redactor^Elohist to connect the following with a previous section of Elohist (Gunkel), or by Redactor^Jehovist to mark the transition from Hebron (18¹) to the Negeb. A redactor, however, would not have been likely to insert the notice ‘between Ḳadesh and Shur’ unless he had meant it as a definition of the site of Gerar.—2. אָמַר אֶל־] = ‘said regarding’ is rare: 2 Kings 19³², Jeremiah 22¹⁸ 27¹⁹; compare א׳ לְ, verse ¹³, Judges 9⁵⁴, Psalms 3³ 71¹⁰.—After Athnach, LXX inserts ἐφοβήθη γὰρ εἰπεῖν ὅτι Γυνή μού ἐστιν, μή ποτε ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες τῆς πόλεως δι’ αὐτήν (from 26^7b).

3‒7. Abimelech’s dream.—This mode of revelation is peculiar to Elohist (21^{12. 14} 22^{1 ff.} 28¹² 31^{11. 24} 37⁵ 46², Numbers 12⁶ 22^{9. 20}), and probably indicates a more spiritual idea of God than the theophanies of Yahwist. It must be remembered, however, that according to primitive ideas the ‘coming’ of God (so 31²⁴, Numbers 22²⁰) would be as real an event in a dream as in waking experience.—4a. had not drawn near her] Not an explanation of Abimelech’s good conscience (which depended solely on the purity of his motives), but of Yahwe’s words in ^6b. Why he had not come near her, we gather fully from ¹⁷.—4b, 5. Abimelech protests his innocence.—innocent folk]—‘such as I am’ (v.i.).—5. בְּתָם־לְבָבִי] ‘unsuspectingly’; compare 2 Samuel 15¹¹, 1 Kings 22³⁴; in the wider sense of moral integrity the phrase occurs 1 Kings 9⁴, Psalms 78⁷² 101².—6. have kept thee back from sinning (i.e. inexpiably) against me] The sin is not mere infringement of the rights of a privileged person (Dillmann), but the moral offence of violating the marriage bond.—suffered thee not] by sickness (verse ¹⁷).—7. The situation is altered by this disclosure of the facts to Abimelech: if he now retains Sarah, he will be on every ground deserving of punishment.—he is a prophet] in a secondary sense, as a ‘man of God,’ whose person and property are inviolable: compare Psalms 105¹⁵.—On intercession as a function of the prophet, Deuteronomy 9²⁰, 1 Samuel 7⁵ 12^{19. 23}, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ etc.; but compare Job 42⁸.—that thou mayest live] or ‘recover.’

The section (^3‒7) exhibits a vacillation which is characteristic of the conception of sin in antique religion. Sin is not wholly an affair of the conscience and inward motive, but an external fact—a violation of the objective moral order, which works out its consequences with the indifference of a law of nature to the mental condition of the transgressor (compare the matricide of Orestes, etc.; and see Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte², 108 f.). At the same time God Himself recognises the relative validity of Abimelech’s plea of ignorance (⁶). It is the first faint protest of the moral sense against the hereditary mechanical notion of guilt. But it is a long way from Abimelech’s faltering protestation of innocence to Job’s unflinching assertion of the right of the individual conscience against the decree of an unjust fate.

3. על] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch על אנדת: compare 21¹¹, Exodus 18⁸, Numbers 12¹ 13²⁴ (Elohist), Genesis 21²⁵ 26³² (Yahwist), Joshua 14⁶ (Redactor), Judges 6⁷.—בעלת בעל] a married woman, Deuteronomy 22²².—4. To גּוֹי in the indefinite sense of ‘people’ (Leute) we may compare Psalms 43¹, Daniel 11²³; but the sense is doubtful, and the idea may be that the whole nation is involved in the punishment of the king (Strack). Eerdmans (Die Komposition der Genesis, 41) offers the incredible suggestion that גוי here has its late Jewish sense of an individual ‘heathen.’ Geiger, Graetz, al. regard the word as a gloss or a corrupt dittography. LXX has ἔθνος ἀγνοοῦν καὶ δίκαιον.—5. נִקָּיוֹן] only here in Hexateuch; Elohist is addicted to rare expressions. For נ׳ כַּפַּי, compare Psalms 26⁶ 73¹³.—6. מֵחֲטוֹּ] for מֵחֲטֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 qq.—נָתַן לְ׳] = ‘permit,’ 31⁷, Numbers 20²¹ 21²³ 22¹³ (Elohist), Exodus 12²³ (Yahwist), 3¹⁹ (Redactor), Deuteronomy 18¹⁴, Joshua 10¹⁹ (Deuteronomic): see Oxford Hexateuch, i. 192.

8‒13. Abimelech and Abraham.—9. a great sin] i.e., a state of things which, though unwittingly brought about, involves heavy judgement from God (see on ^3‒7 above).—deeds that are not done] are not sanctioned by the conventional code of morals: compare 34⁷, 2 Samuel 13¹² etc.—To this rebuke Abraham (as in 12^{18 f.}) has no reply, and Abimelech proceeds in—10 to inquire into his motive for so acting.—מָה רָאִיתָ ‘What possessed thee?’ (v.i.).—11‒13. Abraham’s self-exculpation, which is at the same time the writer’s apology for his conduct, consists of three excuses: (1) he was actuated by fear for his life; (2) he had not been guilty of direct falsehood, but only of mental reservation; (3) the deceit was not practised for the first time on Abimelech, but was a preconcerted scheme which (it is perhaps implied) had worked well enough in other places. Whether 2 and 3 had any foundation in the Elohistic tradition, or were invented by the narrator ad hoc (Gunkel), we cannot now determine.—11. There is no piety (יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים) in this place] Religion was the only sanction of international morality, the gêr having no civil rights; compare 42¹⁸: see Bertholet, Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden, 15. Compare 12¹².—12. Besides, she really is my sister] Marriage with a half-sister on the father’s side was frequent among the Semites (Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 191 f.), and was allowed in ancient Israel (2 Samuel 13¹³), though prohibited by later legislation (Deuteronomy 27²², Leviticus 18^{9. 11} 20¹⁷).—13. When God caused me to stray] The expression is peculiar, as if God had driven him forth an aimless wanderer (Dillmann). It proves that in Elohist, as in Yahwist and Priestly-Code, Abraham was an immigrant in Canaan.

8. האנשים] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate prefix כל.—9. מה עשית לנו] Peshiṭtå = מה עשתי לך, rashly adopted by Ball, Holzinger, Kittel—חטאתי] LXX ἡμάρτομεν.—10. מָה רָאִיתָ LXX τί ἐνιδών; so Vulgate, Ball conjecture יָרֵאתָ; Gunkel רָעִיתָ. The translation given above is taken from Bacher, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xix. 345 ff., who cites many examples from New Hebrew of the idiom (literally ‘What hast thou experienced?’).—11. כִּי] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch כי יראתי כי.—רַק] = ‘[I should act otherwise] only,’ etc.: a purely asseverative force (Brown-Driver-Briggs) seems to me insufficiently established by Deuteronomy 4⁶, 1 Kings 21²⁵, 2 Chronicles 28¹⁰, Psalms 32⁶.—12. אָמְנָה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch [?ה]אמנם, as 18¹³, Numbers 22³⁷; but compare Joshua 7²⁰. These are all the occurrences in Hexateuch.—13. הִתְעוּ] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch התעה. The construct of אֱלֹהִים (plural eminent) with plural predicate is exceptional, though not uncommon (31⁵³ 35⁷, Joshua 24¹⁹), and does not appear to be regulated in our present text by any principle. A tendency to substitute singular for plural is shown by 1 Chronicles 17²¹ compared with 2 Samuel 7²³; and it is probable that the change has taken place in many cases where we have no means of tracing it: see Strack² 77; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 i. A kindred and equally inexplicable anomaly is the sporadic use of the article with this word (so verses ^{6. 17}). Both phenomena are probably survivals from a polytheistic form of the legend.—אבי] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch + ומארץ מילדתי (as 12¹).—כל־המקום] determined by following relative clause; so Exodus 20²⁴, Deuteronomy 11²⁴.

14‒18. Abimelech makes reparation to Abraham.—14. The present to Abraham in 12¹⁶ was of the nature of mōhar or purchase-price of a wife; here it is a compensation for injury unwittingly inflicted. The restoration of Sarah is, of course, common to both accounts.—15. The invitation to dwell in the land is a contrast to the honourable but peremptory dismissal of 12^{19 f.}.—16. see, I give ... to thy brother] For injury done to a woman compensation was due to her relatives if unmarried, to her husband if married or betrothed (Exodus 22^{15 f.}, Deuteronomy 22^{23 ff.}): Abimelech, with a touch of sarcasm, puts Sarah in the former category.—1000 (shekels) of silver] not the money value of the gifts in verse ¹⁴ (Strack), but a special present as a solatium on behalf of Sarah.—a covering of the eyes] seemingly a forensic expression for the prestation by which an offence ceases to be seen, i.e., is condoned. The figure is applied in various ways in Old Testament; compare Job 9²⁴, Genesis 32²¹, Exodus 23⁸, 1 Samuel 12³.—The clause וְאֶת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת is obscure, and the text hardly correct (v.i.). The general sense is that Sarah’s honour is completely rehabilitated.—17. God healed Abimelech] The first explicit intimation (see ^{4. 6}) that Abimelech had been smitten with a bodily malady, whose nature is indicated by the last word וַיֵּלֵֽדוּ.—18. A superfluous and inadequate explanation of ¹⁷, universally recognised as a gloss; note also ‎יהוה.—עָצַר] see on 16².

14. צֹאן] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX prefix אלף כסף (from ¹⁶) wrongly.—ועבדים ושפחת] probably a gloss from 12¹⁶, this being the only instance of שִׁפְחָה in an Elohist context.—16. הִנֵּה הוּא—אִתָּךְ] LXX ταῦτα ἔσται σοι εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ προσώπου σου καὶ πάσαις ταῖς μετὰ σοῦ; Vulgate hoc erit tibi in velamen oculorum ad omnes qui tecum sunt [et quocunque perrexeris]; Peshiṭtå . The difficulties of the verse commence here. The suggestion that הוּא refers to Abraham (Abraham Ibn Ezra) may be dismissed, and also the fantastic idea that Sarah is recommended to spend the money in the purchase of a veil, so that she may not again be mistaken for an unmarried woman (24⁶⁵)! The first question is, Whose eyes are to be covered?—Sarah’s own (לָךְ), or those of the people about her (לְכֹל וגו׳), or both (וּלְכֹל [with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX])? Dillmann adopts the second view, taking לָךְ as dative complement. To this Delitzsch forcibly replies that dative complement before dative of reference is unnatural: hence he takes the first view (לָךְ, dative of reference, and לְכֹל = bezugs aller); i.e., “Her credit with her household, which had been injured by her forcible abduction, would be restored, and the malicious taunts or gossip of men and maids would be checked, when they saw how dearly the unintentional insult had been atoned for” (Ball). A better sense would be obtained if לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר could be taken as neuter: ‘all that has befallen thee’ (Tuch, Holzinger, al.). That is perhaps impossible with the present text; hence Gunkel’s emendation אָתָךְ (perfect √ אָתָה with accusative: Job 3²⁵) is not unattractive.—וְאָת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת] Untranslatable. LXX καὶ πάντα ἀλήθευσον; Vulgate quocunque perrexeris: mementoque te deprehensam; Peshiṭtå (‘about all wherewith thou hast reproached me’); Targum^Onkelos ועל כל מא דאמרת איתוכחת. The change to וְנֹכַחַתּ (2nd singular perfect) is of no avail, the difficulty being mostly in וְאֶת־כֹּל, which cannot be continuation of אִתָּךְ (Tuch al.), or of לָךְ כְּסוּת עֵינַיִם, but must with Massoretic Text accents be taken with ונ׳. The rendering ‘and before all men thou shalt be righted’ (Dillmann, Delitzsch, Driver) is the best that can be made of the text. The easiest emendation is that of Gunkel: וְאַתְּ כֻּלּוֹ נֹכָֽחַת = ‘and thou in all this (affair) art justified,’ though the sense given to כלו has no clear example in the Old Testament. The more drastic remedies of Ball do not commend themselves.—18. יהוה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אלהים.

XXI. 1‒21. Birth of Isaac and Expulsion of Ishmael (Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly-Code).

The birth, circumcision, and naming of Isaac are briefly recorded in a section pieced together from the three sources (^1‒7). Then follows a notice of the weaning festival (⁸), to which, by a finely descriptive touch (⁹), is linked the Elohistic version of the origin of the Ishmaelites (^10‒21). A comparison with the Yahwistic parallel (chapte 16) will be found below (page 324).

Analysis.—^2b‒5 are from Priestly-Code (who by the way ignores altogether the expulsion of Ishmael [see on 25⁹]): observe the naming by the father and the exact correspondence with 16¹⁶ in ³, circumcision (⁴), the chronology (⁵); and the words אֱלֹהִים, ^{2b. 4}; מוֹעֵד, ^2b (compare 17²¹); מְאַת שָׁנָה, ⁵. ^2a is to be assigned to Yahwist (בֵּן לִזְקֻנָיו, v.i.); and also, for the same reason, ⁷. There remain the doublets ^1a ∥ ^1b and ^6a ∥ ^6b. Since the continuity of Priestly-Code is seldom sacrificed, ^1b is usually assigned to that source (יהוה, a scribal error), leaving ^1a to Yahwist (יהוה, פָּקַד). ^6b goes with ⁷ (therefore Yahwist: v.i.); and there remains for Elohist the solitary half-verse ^6a (אלהים), which cannot belong to Priestly-Code because of the different etymology implied for יצחק. So Holzinger, Gunkel; Dillmann, Strack differ only in assigning the whole of ⁶ to Elohist.—The Yahwist fragments ^{1a. 2a. 7. 6b} form a completely consecutive account of the birth of Isaac; which, however, is not the sequel to chapter 18 (see on ^6a), and therefore belongs to Yahwist^Beersheba rather than Yahwist^Hebron (Gunkel).—^8‒21 is wholly Elohistic: אלהים, ^{12. 17. 19. 20}; אמה, ^{10. 12. 13}; שים לגוי, ^{13. 18} (Yahwist עשה ל׳, 12²; Priestly-Code נתן ל׳, 17²⁰); and rare expressions like חמת, ^{14. 15. 19}; מטחוי קשת, ¹⁶; רבה קשת, ²⁰. Further characteristics are the revelation of God by night (^{12 f.}), and in a voice from heaven (¹⁷).

1‒7. The birth of Isaac.—2. a son to his old age] so verse ⁷ 24³⁶ 37³ 44²⁰ (all Yahwist). All the sources emphasise the fact that Isaac was a late-born child; but this section contains nothing implying a miracle (contrast chapters 17, 18).—3‒5. The naming and circumcision of Isaac, in accordance with 17^{19. 12} (Priestly-Code).—6a. God has made laughter for me] Both here and in ^6b laughter is an expression of joy, whereas in 18^{12 ff.} 17¹⁷ it expresses incredulity.—6b, 7 is the Yahwistic parallel. It has been pointed out by Budde (Die biblische Urgeschichte 224: so Kittel, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the transposition of ^6b to the end of ⁷ greatly improves the sense, and brings out the metrical form of the original (in Hebrew 4 trimeters):

Who would have said to Abraham,

“Sarah gives children suck”?

For I have borne him a son in his old age!

Every one that hears will laugh at me!

1a. פקד] never used by Priestly-Code sensu bono (Strack).—2. אלהים] LXX יהוה—3. הנולד־] pointed as perfect with article (18²¹).—6a. צחק] The √ צחק never occurs outside of Pentateuch, except Judges 16²⁵ (where יִשְׂחַק should probably be read) and Ezekiel 23³² (but see Cornill and Toy), the Qal being used only in connexion with Isaac (17¹⁷ 18^{12. 13. 15} 21⁶), while Piel has a stronger sense (19¹⁴ 21⁹ 26⁸ 39^{14. 17}, Exodus 32⁶). The other form שׂחק (not in Pentateuch) is mostly later than Jeremiah (except Judges 16²⁷, 1 Samuel 18⁷, 2 Samuel 2¹⁴ 6^{5. 21}): in four cases (Amos 7^{9. 16}, Jeremiah 33²⁶, Psalms 105⁹) even the name יִצְחָק appears as יִשְׂחָק. It will be seen that in Genesis we have no fewer than 4 (17¹⁷ 18¹² 21^{6a. 6b}) or 5 (21⁹?) different suggestions of a connexion of יִצְחָק with √ צחק. Analogy would lead us to suppose that in reality it is a contraction of יִצְהָקֵאל, in all probability the name of an extinct tribe (compare יְרַחְמְאֵל ,יִשְׁמָעֵאל, etc.).—6b. יִצֲחַק] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 10 g.—7. מִלֵּל] Aramaic; in Hebrew rare and poetic.—On the modal use of perfect (‘would have said’), compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 p; Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 19.—בנים] plural of species; compare Exodus 21²², 1 Samuel 17⁴³, Canticles 2⁹ (Dillmann). LXX has singular.—לזקניו LXX ἐν τῷ γήρει μου.

8‒10. Sarah demands the ejection of Ishmael.—8. The occasion was the customary family feast of the weaning of Isaac (Benzinger Hebräische Archäologie² 131). The age of weaning in modern Palestine is said to be 2 or 3 years (ib. 116); in ancient Israel also it must often have been late (1 Samuel 1^{22 ff.}, 2 Maccabees 7^{27 f.}).—9. playing with Isaac her son] The last words are essential to the sense, and must be restored with LXX, Vulgate (see Jubilees xvii. 4, with Charles’s Note). It is the spectacle of the two young children playing together, innocent of social distinctions, that excites Sarah’s maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demand. The chronology of Priestly-Code, according to which Ishmael was some 17 years old, has for uncritical readers spoiled the effect; and given rise to the notion of Ishmael as a rude lad scoffing at the family joy, or to the still more fanciful explanations current in Jewish circles.¹—10. with my son] If this presupposes an equal right of inheritance as between the sons of the wife and the concubine (Gunkel), it also shows a certain opposition to that custom: compare the case of Jephthah, Judges 11^{1 ff.} (see Benzinger Hebräische Archäologie² 296).—this slave girl (אָמָה)] In Elohist, Hagar is not Sarah’s maid, but simply a household slave, who has become her master’s concubine.

¹ St. Paul’s allusion to Ishmael as persecuting Isaac (Galatians 4²⁹, ἐδίωκεν) is based on this מְצַחֶק. For other Haggadic interpretations, see Bereshith Rabba § liii; Driver A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 503b, and The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes 210. Unchastity (compare 39^{14. 17}), idolatry (Exodus 32⁶, Targum^Jonathan, Rashi), attempted murder (2 Samuel 2¹⁴, Proverbs 26¹⁹), etc., are among the crimes inferred from this unfortunate word.

9. מְצַחֶק LXX παίζοντα μετὰ Ἰσαακ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἑαυτῆς; so Vulgate (compare Zechariah 8⁵). The sense ‘mock’ (‘play with’ in a bad sense) would require a following בְּ, but it is doubtful if it actually occurs. 39^{14. 17} may be explained after 26⁸; in 19¹⁴ it means simply ‘play’ as opposed to serious behaviour (compare Proverbs 26¹⁹). See above on verse ⁶.—On the pausal ־ֶ , see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 52 n.

11‒13. Abraham’s misgivings removed.—11. on account of his son] whom he loves as his own flesh and blood; for the mother, as a slave, he has no particular affection.—12. It is revealed to him (by night: compare ¹⁴) that Sarah’s maternal instincts are in accord with the divine purpose.—shall a seed be called to thee] i.e., ‘in the line of Isaac shall thy name be perpetuated’ (Isaiah 41⁸, compare Romans 9⁷, Hebrews 11¹⁸). The same idea otherwise expressed in Priestly-Code (17^{19. 21}).—13. Hagar’s child (still unnamed) is also Abraham’s seed, though his descendants are not to be known as such.—a great nation (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå)] compare 17²⁰.

11 end] LXX + Ἰσμαηλ (wrongly).—12. יֵרַע] LXX + τὸ ῥῆμα.—13. The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX read האמה הזאת לגוי גדול: גָּדוֹל also in Vulgate, Peshiṭtå.—לְגוֹי [ג׳]—שֵׁים] so verse ¹⁸ 46³ (Elohist).

14‒16. Mother and child in the desert.—The sufferings and despair of the helpless outcasts are depicted with fine feeling and insight.—14. a skin of water] חֵמֶת (v.i.), the usual Eastern water-bag, answering to the of the ǧirby of the modern Bedouin (Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta i. 227, ii. 585).—and the boy he placed on her shoulder (v.i.)] compare ^{15. 16}.—the wilderness of Beersheba (see on ³¹)] implying that Abraham dwelt near, but not necessarily at, Beersheba.—15. she cast the boy (whom, therefore, she must have been carrying) under one of the bushes] for protection from the sun (1 Kings 19^{4 f.}). To save Priestly-Code’s chronology, Delitzsch and Strack make cast = ‘eilends niederlegen’—with what advantage does not quite appear.—16. a bowshot off] out of sight of her child, but within hearing of his cry.—The last clause should be read with LXX; and the boy lifted up his voice and wept (verse ¹⁷): the change of subject being due to the false impression that Ishmael was now a grown lad. Hagar’s dry-eyed despair is a more effective picture than that given by Massoretic Text.

14. חמת] Only here (^{15. 19}) = Arabic ḥamīt (√ ḥamita, ‘rancid’?). On the forms חֵמַת‎, חֵ֑מֶת‎, or חֶ֑מֶת‎, חֵמֶת‎, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 l.—שם על־ וגו׳] The transposition וְאֶת־הַיִּלֶד שָׂם עַל־שִׁכְמָהּ was suggested by Olshausen, and is by far the best remedy for an awkward construct. In Massoretic Text it would be necessary to take וְאֶת־ה׳ as second object to וַיִּתֵּן, and שם על־שכמה as a parenthetic circumstantial clause (so Dillmann, Delitzsch, Strack). It is an effort to evade the absurdity of a youth of 17 being carried on his mother’s back.—15. השיחם] ‘desert shrubs’; see on 2⁵.—16. הרחק] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 h.—כמטחוי קשת] literally ‘as (far as) bowmen do’; LXX ὡσεὶ τόξου βολήν, Peshiṭtå , hardly imply a different text. On מְטַֽחֲוֵי (participle Palestinian √ טחה,—only here), see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 kk.—ותשא וגו׳] LXX וַיִּשָּׂא [הַיֶּלֶר] אֶת־קֹלֹה וַיֵּבְךְּ.

17‒19. The Divine succour comes in two forms: a voice from heaven (^{17 f.}), and an opening of Hagar’s eyes (¹⁹).—17. God heard] (twice) preparing for an explanation of יִשְׁמָעֵאל.—While God Himself hears, the medium of His revelation is the Angel of God (as 28¹² 31¹¹ 32², Exodus 14¹⁹), who by a refinement peculiar to Elohist (22¹¹) speaks from heaven. This goes beyond the primary conception of the Angel: see on 16⁷.—18. Hagar is encouraged by a disclosure of the future greatness of her son.—19. opened her eyes] compare 3^{5. 7}. The tact of the narrator leaves us in doubt whether the well was now miraculously opened, or had been there all along though unseen. In any case it is henceforth a sacred well.

17b. אל־קול] MSS and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch את־קִ׳.—19. באר מים] LXX + חַיִּים,—attractive! (compare 26¹⁹).

20, 21. Ishmael’s career.—Here we expect the naming of the child, based on verse ¹⁷: this has been omitted by Redactor in favour of Yahwist (16¹¹).—20. The boy grew up, amidst the perils and hardships of the desert,—a proof that God was with him.—he became a bowman] (pointing רֹבֶה קַשָּֽׁת: v.i.), the bow being the weapon of his descendants (Isaiah 21¹⁷).—21. The wilderness of Pārān is et-Tīh, bounding the Negeb on the South.—His mother took him a wife from the land of Egypt] her own country (verse ⁹): see page 285 above.

Comparison of chapter 16 with 21^1‒21.—That these two narratives are variations of a common legendary theme is obvious from the identity of the leading motives they embody: viz. the significance of the name Ishmael (16¹¹ 21¹⁷); the mode of life characteristic of his descendants (16¹² 21²⁰); their relation to Israel; and the sacredness of a certain well, consecrated by a theophany (16^{7. 14} 21¹⁹).¹ Each tale is an exhaustive expression of these motives, and does not tolerate a supplementary anecdote alongside of it. Chapter 21, however, represents a conception of the incident further removed from primitive conditions than 16: contrast the sympathetic picture of nomadic life in 16¹² with the colourless notice of 21²⁰; in 16, moreover, Hagar is a high-spirited Bedawi woman who will not brook insult, and is at home in the desert; while in 21 she is a household slave who speedily succumbs to the hardships of the wilderness. In Elohist the appeal is to universal human sympathies rather than to the peculiar susceptibilities of the nomad nature; his narrative has a touch of pathos which is absent from Yahwist; it is marked by a greater refinement of moral feeling, and by a less anthropomorphic idea of God.—See the admirable characterisation of Gunkel, page 203 f.

¹ The well is not identified in Elohist. Gunkel’s view, that it was Beersheba, has little to commend it.

20. ויהי רבה קשת] ‘and he became, growing up, an archer’; Vulgate juvenis sagittarius (so Targum^Onkelos). But קַשָּׁת is ἅπαξ εἰρημένον, the syntax is peculiar, and, besides, the growing up has been already mentioned. The true text is doubtless that given above and implied by LXX ἐγένετο δὲ τοξότης. Peshiṭtå also implies קֶשֶׁת; but there are further divergences in that Version. רבה = ‘shoot’ (not so elsewhere), might be a by-form of רבב (see on 49²³; and compare רַב = ‘shooter,’ in Jeremiah 50²⁹, Job 16¹³); but it may be a question whether in these three cases we should not substitute רבה for רבב, or whether in this passage we should not read רֹמֵה קֶשֶׁת with Ball (see especially Jeremiah 4²⁹, Psalms 78⁹). The rendering ‘a shooter, an archer’ (Delitzsch), is clumsy; and the idea that קַשָּׁת is an explanatory gloss on רֹבֶה (Kautzsch-Socin) is not probable.

XXI. 22‒34. Abraham’s Covenant with Abimelech (Elohist and Yahwist).

Two distinct narratives, each leading up to a covenant at Beersheba, are here combined. (A) In the first, Abraham, acceding to a request of Abimelech, enters into a covenant of permanent friendship with him, from which the place derives its name ‘Well of the Oath’ (^{22‒24. 27. 31}).—(B) In the other, the covenant closes a long-standing dispute about springs, and secures the claim of Abraham’s people to the wells of Beersheba, where Abraham subsequently plants a sacred tree (^{25. 26. 28‒30. 32. 33}).

Sources.—The passage, except some redactional touches in ^32‒34, has usually been assigned to Elohist (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Dillmann, Holzinger, Strack). Its disjointed character has, however, been felt, and tentative solutions have been proposed by several critics (compare Kautzsch-Socin Anm. 92, 93; Kraetzschmar Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament 14, 31; von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstätten 46 f.; Oxford Hexateuch ii. 30 f.). The most successful is that of Gunkel, who assigns ^{25. 26. 28‒30. 32‒34} to Yahwist, the rest to Elohist: the reasons will appear in the notes. The analysis rests on the duplicates (^27a ∥ ^3Oa, ^27b ∥ ^32a) and material discrepancies of the section; the linguistic criteria being indecisive as between Yahwist and Elohist, though quite decisive against Priestly-Code (חֶסֶד, הֵנָּה, ²³; כָּרַת בְּרִית, ²⁷; בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰). But the connexion with chapter 20, and אֱלֹהִים in ^{22. 23}, prove that the main account is from Elohist; while יהוה, ³³, and בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰, show the other to be Yahwist. Since the scene is Beersheba, the Yahwistic component must be Yahwist^Beersheba.—^32‒34 have been considerably modified by Redactors. Procksch (10 ff.) holds that in the original Elohist verses ^{22 ff.} preceded ^1‒20; his detailed analysis being almost identical with Gunkel’s.

22‒24. Abimelech proposes an oath of perpetual amity between his people and Abraham’s, and the latter consents (Elohist).—22. Pîkōl (v.i.), his commander-in-chief, seems here merely a symbol of the military importance of Gerar: otherwise 26^{26 ff.}, where Pîkōl is a party to the covenant.—23. Swear to me here] in the place afterwards known as Beersheba (³¹). Abraham’s departure from Gerar, and Abimelech’s visit to him in Beersheba, must have stood in Elohist between 20¹⁷ and 21²² (compare 26^{13. 26}).—24. This unreserved consent is inconsistent with the expostulation of—25, 26 (Yahwist), which presupposes strained relations between the parties, and repeated disputes about the ownership of wells. Note (1) the frequentative וְהוֹכִחַ, (2) the plural ‘wells’ (retained by LXX), (3) the fuller parallel of 26^{15. 18 ff.}, which shows that the right to several wells had been contested.—And as often as Abraham took Abimelech to task about the wells ... Abimelech would answer]—that he knew nothing of the matter (so Gunkel).—27. Continuing ²⁴ (Elohist). Giving (or exchange?) of presents seems to have been customary when a covenant was made (1 Kings 15¹⁹, Isaiah 30⁶, Hosea 12²). The action would be no suitable answer to verse ²⁶.—28‒30 (Yahwist). the seven ewe lambs are set apart for the purpose explained in ³⁰; but the article shows that they must have been mentioned in the previous context. It is clear from ³⁰ that the lacuna is in Yahwist, not in Elohist; while Abimelech’s question ²⁹ proves that the lambs were not an understood part of the ceremony (Dillmann).—30. that it (the acceptance of the present) may be a witness, etc.] so that in future there may be no quarrel about Beersheba.—31. belongs to Elohist: נִשְׁבְּעוּ, compare ^{23 f.}; שְׁנֵיהֶם, compare ²⁷.—בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע = ‘seven wells,’ is here explained as ‘Well of the Oath,’ the oath being the central feature of the berîth. The etymology is not altogether at fault, since נִשְׁבַּֽע may mean literally to ‘put oneself under the influence of seven,’ the sacred number (Herodotus iii. 8; Homer Iliad xix. 243 ff.; Pausanias iii. 20. 9).—32a. Yahwist’s parallel to ^27b.¹—33. The inauguration of the cult of Beersheba (Yahwist: compare 26²⁵). Among the sacra of that famous shrine there must have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been planted by Abraham (see on 12⁶). The planting of a sacred tree is no more a contradictio in adjecto (Stade in von Gall, 47) than the erecting of a sacred stone, or the digging of a sacred well. The opinion (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the subject is Isaac, and that the verse should stand after 26²⁵, rests on the incorrect assumption that no stratum of Yahwist puts Abraham in connexion with Beersheba.—’El ‛Ôlâm] presumably the pre-Israelite name of the local numen, here identified with Yahwe (Gunkel: see 16¹³). Canaanite analogies are Ἦλος ὁ καὶ Κρόνος (Eusebius Præparatio Evangelica i. 10, 13 ff.), and Χρόνος ἀγήρατος (Damascius Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles 123).—34. The assumption that Beersheba was in Philistine territory being incompatible with ^32b, the verse must be an interpolation.—On the historical background of these legends, see after 26³³.

¹ ^32b would be a natural conclusion to Elohist’s narrative (compare ²²), but for the fact that that source never speaks of a Philistine occupation of Gerar. The last three verses, however, seem to have been altered by a compiler.—It is probable that Yahwist gave an explanation of the name of the well, connecting it with the seven lambs; so Targum^Jonathan (בירא דשבע חורפן).

Beersheba is the modern Bi’r-es-Seba‛, in the heart of the Negeb, some 28 miles South-west from Hebron, and 25 South-east from Umm el-Ǧerār. Its importance as a religious centre in the Old Testament appears not only from its frequent mention in the patriarchal history (22¹⁹ 26^{23 ff. 31 ff.} 28¹⁰ 46^{1 ff.}), but still more from the fact that in the 8th century its oracle (compare 25²²) was resorted to by pilgrims from the northern kingdom (Amos 5⁵ 8¹⁴). Von Gall (44 ff.) questions the opinion that it was originally a group of 7 wells, holding that there was but one, whose name meant ‘Well of the Oath.’ But that “among the Semites a special sanctity was attached to groups of seven wells” is shown by Smith (Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 181 f.: compare Nöldeke Archiv für Religionswissenschaft., vii. 340 ff.); and the existence of a plurality of wells at Bi’r es-Seba‛ has never been disputed. See Robinson Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 204 ff.; Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 284 f.; Robinson, Biblical World, xvii. (1901), 247 ff.; Gautier, ib. xviii. 49 ff.; Driver The Expository Times, vii. (1896), 567 f.; Joel and Amos² (1901), page 239 f.; Trumbull, The Expository Times, viii. 89.

22. ופיכל] LXX prefix καὶ Ὀχοζὰθ ὁ νυμφαγωγὸς αὐτοῦ (from 26²⁶). Spiegelberg (Orientalische Litteraturzeitung, ix. 109) considers this one of the few Egyptian names in Old Testament = p⁠^<⁠Ḫ-r(j), “the Syrian.”—23. אם] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 149 c.—נין ונכד] (proles et soboles) an alliterative phrase found in Isaiah 14²², Job 18¹⁹, Sirach 41⁵ 47²²†.—25. והוכח] “must be corrected to וַיּוֹכַח” (Ball, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 112 tt): The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויוכיח. But Massoretic Text is probably right, with frequent sense of perfect given above. For the following ויאמר (instead of ואמר), see Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 114 β.—באר] LXX φρεάτων, ut sup.—28. הצאן] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (which also omits את־) צאן. Delitzsch thinks this one of the few cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 e) where article determines only its own word, and not the whole expression.—29. Read הכבשת with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (³⁰).—לבדָּֽנָה (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch לבדהן)]. On suffix compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 f. The form is chiefly pausal; and though the only other example in Pentateuch (Genesis 42³⁶) is Elohist, 30⁴¹ (־ֶנָּה) is Yahwist, and the form cannot be considered distinctive of Elohist.—31. באר שבע] LXX Φρέαρ ὁρκισμοῦ, but in ³² Φρέατι τοῦ ὅρκου. The construction (number in genitive after singular noun) has been supposed by Stade to be Canaanite idiom (compare קִרְיַת אַרְבַּֽע, 23²).—33. אֵשֶׁל] Arabic ’aṯl, Aramaic אתלא, Assyrian ašlu; 1 Samuel 22⁶ 31¹³ [in 1 Chronicles 10¹² אֵלָה]†, in both cases probably denoting a sacred tree. The word seems to have been strange to versions: LXX ἄρουραν, Aquila δενδρῶνα, Symmachus φυτείαν, Vulgate nemus, etc. The substitution of אֲשֵׁרָה proposed by Stade (v.s.) is uncalled for, though see Encyclopædia Biblica, 4892 f.—עולם] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch העולם.—34 is wanting in Targum^Jonathan (edited by Ginsburger).