Chapter XXVI · Isaac and the Philistines (Yahwist, Redactor, Priestly-Code). (continued 2)

24. God (not the Angel of God, as verse ¹¹) warns Laban in a dream to take heed to his words when he encounters Jacob.—good or bad] ‘anything whatever’ (24⁵⁰, 2 Samuel 13²² etc.). Laban did not interpret the prohibition literally (²⁹).—25. in the mountain ...] The idea suggested being that Jacob and Laban encamped each on a different mountain, we must suppose the name to have been omitted. The insertion of Miẓpāh (verse ⁴⁹) is strongly recommended by Judges 10¹⁷ (see Ball, 88).—On the situation of Mount Gilead, see page 402 f.

25. אחיו] Better אָֽהֳלוֹ (Ball).

26‒43. The altercation.

The subjects of recrimination are: on Laban’s part, (a) the secret flight, (b) the carrying off of his daughters, and (c) the theft of his god; on Jacob’s part, (d) the hardships of his 20 years’ service, and (e) the attempts to defraud him of his hire. Of these, b, c, and e certainly belong to Elohist; a and d more probably to Yahwist.—In detail, the verses that can be confidently assigned to Elohist are: ²⁶ (גָּנַב לֵב, as ²⁰), ²⁸ (continuation of ²⁶), ²⁹ (compare ²⁴), ^{30. 32‒35} (תרפים), ⁴¹ (‘ten times’), ⁴² (compare ^{24. 29}) and ⁴³ (because of the connexion with ^{26. 28}): note also אֱלֹהים, ^{29. 42}; אֲמָהֹת, ³³. The sequence of Elohist is interrupted by ^{27 (∥ 26). 31b} (the natural answer to ²⁷), ^{36a (∥ 36b)}: these clauses are accordingly assigned to Yahwist; along with ^38‒40 (a parallel to ^{41 f.}). The analysis (which is due to Gunkel) yields for Elohist a complete narrative: ^{26. 28‒31a. 32‒35. 36b. 37. 41‒43}. The Yahwistic parallel is all but complete (^{27. 31a. b. 36a. 38‒40}); but we miss something after ³¹ to account for Jacob’s exasperation in ³⁶. We may suppose (with Gunkel) that Laban had accused Jacob of stealing his flocks, and that ^38‒40 is a reply to this charge.—Procksch’s division is slightly different.

26‒28. Laban offers a sentimental pretext for his warlike demonstration: in Elohist his slighted affection for his offspring (²⁸); in Yahwist his desire to honour a parting guest (²⁷).—27. with mirth and music] This manner of speeding the parting guest is not elsewhere mentioned in Old Testament.—29. It is in my power (v.i.) to do you harm]—but for the interposition of God.—30. Thou hast gone off forsooth, because forsooth, etc.] The infinitives absolute express irony (Davidson § 86).—stolen my god(s)] This is a serious matter, and leads up to the chief scene of the dispute.—32. Jacob is so sure of the innocence of his household that he offers to give up the culprit to death if the theft can be proved: a similar enhancement of dramatic interest in 44^{9 ff.}.—33‒35. The search for the teraphim is described with a touch of humour, pointed with sarcasm at a prevalent form of idolatry.—34. Rachel had hidden the idol in the camel’s litter or palanquin (Burckhardt Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys ii. 85; Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta i. 437, ii. 304; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 1124), in which she was apparently resting within the tent, on account of her condition.—35. דֶּרֶךְ נָשִׁים = אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים (18¹¹, Yahwist). Women in this condition were protected by a powerful taboo (compare Leviticus 15¹⁹ etc.).—36, 37. Jacob now turns on Laban, treating the accusation about the teraphim as mere pretext for searching his goods.—38‒40 (Yahwist). A fine picture of the ideal shepherd, solicitous for his master’s interests, sensitive to the least suspicion of fraud, and careless of his personal comfort.—39. I brought not to thee] as a witness (Exodus 22¹²). Jacob had thus gone far beyond his legal obligation.—made it good] literally ‘counted it missing.’—40. heat by day and frost by night] Jeremiah 36⁸⁰. Under the clear skies of the East the extreme heat of the day is apt to be followed by intense cold at night (see Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 69 ff.).—41, 42 (Elohist). the Fear of Isaac] The deity feared and worshipped by Isaac (⁵³†). That פַּחַד יִצְחָק meant originally the terror inspired by Isaac, the local deity of Beersheba (Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 254 f.), is a hazardous speculation.—43. Laban maintains his right, but speedily adopts a more pathetic tone, leading on to the pacific proposal of ⁴⁴.—The question what shall I do to ...?] means ‘what last kindness can I show them?’ (Gunkel, Driver); not ‘how can I do them harm?’ (Dillmann and most).

26, 27. LXX omits ותגנב את־לבבי, and transposes ^{27a. 26b}.—27. ולא] LXX וְלֻא, which is perhaps better than Massoretic Text.—28. נטש] usually ‘reject’ or ‘abandon’; only here = ‘allow.’—עשו] for עֲשׂוֹת (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 n).—29. יֶשׁ־לְאֵל יָדִי] Micah 2¹, Proverbs 3²⁷, Sirach 5¹ (Deuteronomy 28³², Nehemiah 5⁵). The meaning is certain (‘be within one’s power’), but the expression is very obscure. The current explanations (both represented in the Versions) are: (1) That אֵל is an abstract noun = ‘power,’ and יָדִי genitive. (2) That יָדִי is subject of the sentence and אֵל the word for God: ‘my hand is for a God.’ The first depends on a singular sense of אֵל; and for the second יש לי ידי לאל would have been more natural. A third view has recently been propounded by Brockelmann (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxvi. 29 ff.), who renders ‘it belongs to the God of my hand,’ a survival of a primitive belief in special deities or spirits animating different members of the body (compare Tylor, Primitive Culture⁴ ii. 127).—עמכם, אביכם] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX have singular suffix.—30. אביך] LXX + ἀπελθεῖν· καί. The וְ should probably be restored.—31. LXX omits כי יראתי.—32. The opening words in LXX וַיֹאמֶר לוֹ יַֽעֲקֹב may be original, introducing the duplicate from Elohist.—32b. is preceded in LXX by the variant καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω παρ’ αὐτῷ οὐθέν.—33. לבן] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch + זיחבש (read ויחפש); so LXX.—The clause ^33aβ disagrees with what follows, and may be a gloss. LXX reduces the discrepancy by omissions, and a complete rearrangement of clauses.—36. מַה²] Read וּמַה with Hebrew MSS The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå.—39. On אֲחַטֶּנָּה for אֲחַטְּאָנָּה, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 74 k or 75 oo.—גנבתי יום וג׳ לילה is probably an archaic technical phrase, preserving an old case-ending (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 l).—40. On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 143 a.—41. These twenty years] The repetition (verse ³⁸) would, as Dillmann says, not be surprising in animated speech; and is not of itself evidence of a change of source. But Jacob’s oratory is more dignified if relieved of this slight touch of affectation.—זה] not here a pronoun but used adverbially, as 27³⁶ etc. (see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 261 b).—42. אלהי אברהם may be a gloss (Gunkel): LXX omits אלהי.

44‒54. The treaty of Gilead.

Evidences of a double recension appear in every circumstance of the narrative. (a) Two names are explained: Gilead (^48b), and Miẓpāh (^49a); (b) two sacred monuments are erected, a cairn (^{46. 48. 51. 52}), and a monolith (^{45. 51. 52}); (c) the covenant feast is twice recorded (^{46b. 54}); (d) the terms of the covenant are given in two forms: (1) Jacob will not ill-treat Laban’s daughters (⁵⁰), and (2) the cairn is to mark the boundary between two peoples (⁵²); (e) God is twice called to witness (^{49 f. 53}). To arrange these duplicates in two parallel series is difficult, because of the numerous glosses and dislocations of the text; but some connecting lines can be drawn. Since Yahwist always avoids the word מַצֵּבָה (page 378), we assume first of all that the monolith (and consequently Miẓpāh) belongs to Elohist, and the cairn to Yahwist. Now the cairn goes with the frontier treaty (^{51. 52} [removing glosses], Yahwist), and Miẓpāh with the family compact (⁴⁹, Elohist). To Yahwist we must obviously assign ^{46. 48}, and also (if we may suppose that only the גַּל was spoken of as an עֵד) ⁴⁴; while Elohist as naturally claims ⁴⁵. At the end, ^53b is Elohist (פחד יצחק, compare ⁴²), and likewise ⁵⁴ (the feast, ∥ ⁴⁶, Yahwist). ^53a is probably Yahwist: note the difference of divine names. Thus: ^{44. 46. 48. 51‒53a} = Yahwist; ^{45. 49. 50. 53b. 54} = Elohist.—The analysis is due to Holzinger and Gunkel; Procksch practically agrees, with the important difference that the parts of Yahwist and Elohist are (quite wrongly, as it seems to me) interchanged. It is superior to the schemes of Wellhausen, Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, al., which assign the cairn and the maẓẓebāh to the same sources.—The principal glosses (many of which excite suspicion apart from the analysis) are יעקב in ⁴⁵ and ⁴⁶; verses ^{47. 49aα}; והנה המצבה in ⁵¹; ועדה המצבה and ואת־המצבה הזאת in ⁵²: on these v.i. Nearly all are retained by LXX, where, however, the confusion is increased by a complete change in the order of clauses: ^{48a. 47. 51. 52a. 48b. 49. 50a. 52b},—^50b being inserted after ⁴⁴.—The analysis works out in translation as follows (glosses being enclosed in square brackets, and necessary additions and corrections in ⌜⌝):

Yahwist: ⁴⁴ And now (the speaker is Laban), come, let us make a covenant, I and thou; ... and it shall be for a witness between me and thee. ⁴⁶ And ⌜he⌝ (i.e. Laban) [Jacob], said to his brethren, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made a cairn, and they ate there upon the cairn. [⁴⁷ And Laban called it Yᵉgar Sāhădûthā, but Jacob called it Gal‛ēd.] ⁴⁸ And Laban said, This cairn is a witness between me and thee this day; therefore he called its name ⌜Gil‛ad⌝ [^49aα and Miẓpah, for he said]. ⁵¹ And Laban said to Jacob, Behold this cairn [and behold the pillar] which I have thrown up between me and thee—⁵² a witness is this cairn [and a witness is the pillar]: I will not pass this cairn to thee, and thou shalt not pass this cairn [and this pillar] to me, with evil intent. ^53a The God of Abraham and the God of Naḥor be Judge between us! [the God of their father]. Elohist: ⁴⁵ And ⌜he⌝ (i.e. Laban) [Jacob] took a stone and set it up as a pillar. ^49aβb ⌜and he said⌝, May ⌜God⌝ [Yahwe] watch between me and thee, when we are hidden from one another. ⁵⁰ If thou ill-treat my daughters, or take other wives besides my daughters, no man being with us, see, God is witness between me and thee. ^53b And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac. ⁵⁴ And Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain and called his brethren to eat bread; and they ate bread, and spent the night on the mountain.

44. Compare 21^{23 ff.} 26^{28 ff.}—The subject of וְהָיָה cannot be בְּרִית, which is feminine, and is rather the fact to be witnessed to than a witness of something else. There must be a lacuna before והיה, where we must suppose that some material object (probably the cairn: compare ⁴⁸, Yahwist) was mentioned.—45 (Elohist). And he took a stone] Since it is Laban who explains the meaning of the stone (⁴⁹), it must have been he who set it up; hence יַֽעֲקֹב is to be deleted as a false explication of the implicit subject.—set it on high as a maẓẓebāh] see 28^{18. 22}. The monolith may have stood on an eminence and formed a conspicuous feature of the landscape (Dillmann).—46 (Yahwist). And he (Laban) said, etc.] Here יַֽעֲקֹב is certainly wrong, for Laban expressly says that the cairn was raised by him (⁵¹).—a cairn] גַּל means simply a heap of stones (v.i.), not a rampart (Wellhausen, Dillmann). The idea that the גַּל was originally the mountain range of Gilead itself, Laban and Jacob being conceived as giants (Wellhausen, Gunkel, Meyer), has certainly no support in the text.—they ate upon the cairn] The covenant feast, which may very well have preceded the covenant ceremony; see 26³⁰.—47. In spite of its interesting and philologically correct notice, the verse must unfortunately be assigned to a glossator, for the reasons given below.—48 (Yahwist). Laban explains the purpose of the cairn, and names it accordingly: cairn of witness.] The stone heap is personified, and was no doubt in ancient times regarded as animated by a deity (compare Joshua 24²⁷). גַּלְעֵד is, of course, an artificial formation, not the real or original pronunciation of גִּלְעָד.—49 (Elohist). And [the] Miẓpāh, for he said] The text, if not absolutely ungrammatical, is a very uncouth continuation of ^48b, with which in the primary documents it had nothing to do; see further inf.—May God (read so with LXX) watch] Miẓpāh means ‘watch-post.’ On its situation, see page 403.—50. The purport of the covenant, according to Elohist. Jacob swears (^53b) that he will not maltreat Laban’s daughters, nor even marry other wives besides them. The latter stipulation has a parallel in a late Babylonian marriage contract (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iv. 187, Number XI.).—God is witness] The idea is less primitive than that of Yahwist, where the witness is an inanimate object.—We observe how the religious sanction is invoked where human protection fails (compare 20¹¹ 42¹⁸, both Elohist).—51‒53a. The terms of the covenant in Yahwist: neither party (people) is to pass the cairn with hostile intent. All the references to the maẓẓebāh (^{51b. 52a. b}) are to be deleted as glosses.—The God of Abraham ... Nāḥôr] Whether a polytheistic differentiation of two gods is attributed to Laban can hardly be determined. The plural verb would not necessarily imply this in Elohist (see 20¹³), though in Yahwist it might.—53b, 54. The covenant oath and feast in Elohist.—The Fear of ... Isaac] See on verse ⁴².—54. his brethren] not Laban and his companions, but his own fellow-clansmen (verse ³⁷).—spent the night, etc.] Is this part of the religious ceremony? (Gunkel).

The Scene of the Treaty.—The name Gil‛ād (often with article) in Old Testament is sometimes applied to the whole region Elohist of the Jordan (Joshua 22⁹ etc.), but more properly denotes the mountain range (הַר הַגִּלְעָד) extending from the Yarmuk to the Arnon (2 Kings 10³³ etc.), divided by the Jabboḳ into two parts (Joshua 12²), corresponding to the modern Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn and el-Belḳā, North and South respectively of the Wādī ez-Zerḳā. The name Ǧebel Ǧil‛ād still survives as that of a mountain, crowned by the lofty summit of Ǧebel Ōsha‛, North of es-Salṭ, where are found the ruined cities Ǧil‛ād and Ǧal‛aud (Burckhardt. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, 348). It is therefore natural to look here in the first instance for the ‘cairn of witness’ from which the mountain and the whole region were supposed to have derived their names. The objections to this view are (1) that Jacob, coming from the North, has not yet crossed the Jabboḳ, which is identified with the Zerḳa; and (2) that the frontier between Israel and the Aramæans (of Damascus) could not have been so far South. These reasons have prevailed with most modern authorities, and led them to seek a site somewhere in the North or North-east of Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn. But the assumption that Laban represents the Aramæans of Damascus is gratuitous, and has no foundation in either Yahwist or Elohist (see the next note). The argument from the direction of Jacob’s march applies only to Yahwist, and must not be too rigorously pressed; because the treaty of Gilead and the crossing of the Jabboḳ belong to different cycles of tradition, and the desire to finish off Jacob’s dealings with Laban before proceeding to his encounter with Esau might very naturally occasion a departure from strict geographical consistency.¹—The site of Miẓpāh has to be investigated separately, since we cannot be certain that Yahwist and Elohist thought of the same locality. East of the Jordan there was a Miẓpāh (Judges 10¹⁷ 11^{11. 34}, Hosea 5¹) which is thought to be the same as מִצְפֵּה גִלְעָד (Judges 11²⁹) and רָמַת הַמִּצְפֶּה (Joshua 13²⁶); but whether it lay South or North of the Jabboḳ cannot be determined. The identification with Rāmôth-Gil‛ād, and of this with er-Remte, South-west of the ancient Edrei, is precarious. The name (‘watch-post’) was a common one, and may readily be supposed to have occurred more than once East of the Jordan. See Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 586; Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 262; Driver in smaller A Dictionary of the Bible, s.v.; and on the whole of this note, compare Smend, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1902, 149 ff.

¹ It seems to me very doubtful how far Jacob’s route, as described in chapters 32, 33, can be safely used as a clue to the identification of the localities mentioned (Gilead, Miẓpah, Maḥanaim, the Ford, Peniel, Succoth). The writers appear to have strung together a number of Transjordanic legends connected with the name of Jacob, but without much regard to topographical consistency or consecutiveness (see page 408). The impossibility of the current identifications (e.g. those of Merrill and Conder), as stages of an actual itinerary, is clearly shown by Driver in The Expository Times, xiii. (1902), 457 ff. It is only when that assumption is frankly abandoned that the identification of Gilead with Ǧil‛ād, of Mahanaim with Maḥne (page 405), of the Ford with Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh (page 408), becomes feasible.

Historical Background of 31^44‒54.—The treaty of Gilead in Yahwist evidently embodies ethnographic reminiscences, in which Jacob and Laban were not private individuals, but represented Hebrews and Aramæans respectively. The theory mostly favoured by critical historians is that the Aramæans are those of Damascus, and that the situation reflected is that of the Syrian wars which raged from circa 860 to circa 770 B.C. (see Wellhausen Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels⁶ 320 f.). Gunkel (page 312) has, however, pointed out objections to this assumption; and has given strong reasons for believing that the narratives refer to an earlier date than 860. The story reads more like the record of a loose understanding between neighbouring and on the whole friendly tribes, than of a formal treaty between two highly organised states like Israel and Damascus; and it exhibits no trace of the intense national animosity which was generated during the Syrian wars. In this connexion, Meyer’s hypothesis that in the original tradition Laban represented the early unsettled nomads of the eastern desert (see page 334), acquires a new interest. Considering the tenacity with which such legends cling to a locality, there is no difficulty in supposing that in this case the tradition goes back to some prehistoric settlement of territorial claims between Hebrews and migratory Aramæans. It is true that Meyer’s theory is based on notices peculiar to Elohist, while the tribal compact belongs to Yahwist; and it may appear hazardous to go behind the documents and build speculations on a substratum of tradition common to both. But the only material point in which Yahwist differs from Elohist is his identification of Laban with the Aramæans of Ḥarran; and this is not inconsistent with the interpretation here suggested. In any case, his narrative gives no support to the opinion that he has in view the contemporary political relations with the kingdom of Damascus.

44b. The omitted words (v.s.) might be וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה גַל or some such expression (Olshausen, Dillmann, Ball, Gunkel, al.). To the end of the verse LXX appends: εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Ἰακωβ, Ἰδοὺ οὐθεὶς μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐστίν· ἰδὲ ὁ θεὸς μάρτυς ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ (from verse ⁵⁰).—46. ויקחו] LXX וַיִּלְקְטוּ.—גַּל] From √ גלל ‘roll’ (stones, 29³, Joshua 10¹⁸, 1 Samuel 14³³, Proverbs 26²⁷). On sacred stone-heaps among the Arabs, see Wellhausen Reste arabischen Heidentums² 111 f. (with which compare Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta i. 26, 81, 431); Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion to-day, 80 (cairn as witness); on the eating upon the cairn, Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament, 131 ff.—47. יְגַר שָֽׂחֲדוּתָא is the precise Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew גַל עֵד, ‘heap of witness.’ The decisive reasons for rejecting the verse are: (1) It stands out of its proper place, anticipating ^48b; (2) it contradicts ^48b, where the Hebrew name גַּלְעֵד is given by Laban; (3) it assumes (contrary to the implication of all the patriarchal narratives) that the Naḥorites spoke a different dialect from the ancestors of the Hebrews. It may be added that the Aramaic phrase shows the glossator to have taken גַּלְעֵד as construct and genitive, whereas the latter in ^48b is more probably a sentence ‘the heap is witness’ (see Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, 10 f.). The actual name [הַ]גִּלְעָד is usually, but dubiously, explained by Arabic ǧal‛ad ‘hard,’ ‘firm.’—48. על־כן קרא שמו] so 11⁹ 19²² 29^{34 f.} (all Yahwist), 25³⁰ (Yahwist?).—49. וְהַמִּצְפָּה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch והמצבה, which Wellhausen thinks the original name of the place, afterwards changed to המצפה because of the evil associations of the word maẓẓebāh. He instances the transcription of LXX Μασσηφα, as combining the consonants of the new name with the vowels of the old (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 44¹). The argument is precarious; but there seems to be a word-play between the names; and since the opening is evidently corrupt, it is possible that both stood in the text. Ball’s restoration והמצבה אשר [הֵרִים קָרָא הַמִּצְפָּה כִּי] אמר has met with the approval of several scholars (Holzinger, Strack); but as the sequence to ⁴⁵ we should rather expect וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ הַמִּצְפָּה. LXX has καὶ Ἡ ὅρασις, ἣν εἶπεν, following Massoretic Text.—יהוה] LX אלהים must be adopted if the verse is rightly ascribed to Elohist.—51. המצבה] LXX + הַזֹּאת (so verse ⁵²).—אשׁר יריתי] ‘which I have thrown up.’ ירה, ‘throw,’ is most commonly used of shooting arrows, and only here of piling up stones. Once it means to lay (jacere) a foundation (Job 38⁶), but it could hardly be applied to the erection of a pillar. It is an advantage of the analysis given above that it avoids the necessity of retaining the maẓẓebāh as object of יריתי and rejecting the cairn.—52. אם—לא (bis)] The double negative is contrary to the usage of asseverative sentences (compare ⁵⁰), but may be explained by an anakolouthon (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 167 b).—את־הגל הזה] LXX omits.—53. ישׁפטו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå יִשְׁפֹּט.—אלהי אביהם] LXX and Hebrew MSS omit, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch א׳ אברהם, Peshiṭtå . Probably a margin gloss to ^53a.—XXXII. 1. וילך וישב] LXX וַיָּשָׁב וַיֵּלֶךְ.

XXXII. 2‒33. Jacob’s Measures for propitiating Esau: His Wrestling with the Deity at Peniel (Yahwist, Elohist).

After a vision of angels at Maḥanaim (^{2. 3}), Jacob sends a humble message announcing his arrival to Esau, but learns to his consternation that his brother is advancing to meet him with 400 men (^4‒7). He divides his company into two bands, and invokes God’s help in prayer (^8‒14a); then prepares a present for Esau, and sends it on in advance (^14b‒22). Having thus done all that human foresight could suggest, he passes a lonely night in the ravine of the Jabboḳ, wrestling with a mysterious antagonist, who at daybreak blesses him and changes his name to Israel (^23‒33).

Sources.—Verses ^{2. 3} are an isolated fragment of Elohist (מלאכי אלהים, פָּגַע בּ, [28¹¹]); ^4‒14a and ^14b‒22 are parallels (compare ^14a with ^22b), the former from Yahwist יהוה, ¹⁰; שפחה, ⁶; מולדת, ¹⁰; מצא חן, ⁶; contrast the implied etymology of מַחֲנַיִם in ^{8. 9. 11} with Elohist’s in ³): ^14b‒22 must therefore be Elohist, though positive marks of that writer’s style cannot be detected.—On the complicated structure of ^23‒33 (Jehovist), see page 407 below.

2, 3. The legend of Maḥanaim.—2. angels ... met him] The verb for ‘meet,’ as here construed (v.i.), usually means to ‘oppose.’—3. This is God’s camp] or a camp of gods. The idea of divine armies appears elsewhere in Old Testament (compare Joshua 5¹⁴), and perhaps underlies the expression ‘Host of heaven’ and the name Yahwe Ẓebā’ôth.—Maḥanaim is here apparently not regarded as a dual (contrast ^{8. 9. 11}). On its site, v.i.

The brief statement of the text seems to be a torso of a legend which had gathered round the name Maḥanaim, whose original meaning has been lost. The curtailment probably indicates that the sequel was objectionable to the religious feeling of later times; and it has been surmised that the complete story told of a conflict between Jacob and the angels (originally divine beings), somewhat similar to the wrestling of verses ^{24 ff.} (Gunkel, Bennett). The word ‘camp’ (compare the fuller text of LXX inf.), and the verbal phrase פגע ב both suggest a warlike encounter.

2. After לדרכו LXX inserts καὶ ἀναβλέψας τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἴδεν παρεμβολὴν θεοῦ παρεμβεβληκυῖαν, enhancing the vividness of the description.—פָּגַע בְּ] = ‘encounter with hostility,’ Judges 8²¹ 15¹² 18²⁵, 1 Samuel 22^{17 f.}, 2 Samuel 1¹⁵, 1 Kings 2^{25 ff.}, Ruth 2²²; = ‘intercede,’ Job 21¹⁵, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ 27¹⁸, Ruth 1¹⁶. The neutral sense ‘meet,’ with personsal objective, is doubtfully supported by Numbers 35^{19. 21}, Joshua 2¹⁶, where hostile intention is evidently implied: elsewhere this is expressed by accusative personsal (Exodus 5²⁰ 23⁴, 1 Samuel 10⁵, Amos 5¹⁹). Genesis 28¹¹ is somewhat different, the object being impersonal (compare the use in Joshua 16⁷ 17¹⁰ etc.).—3. מחנים] an important East Jordanic city and sanctuary, the capital of Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 2⁸), and David’s headquarters during the revolt of Absalom (2 Samuel 17^{24. 27}), the centre of a fiscal district under Solomon (1 Kings 4¹⁴). The situation of Maḥne or Miḥne on Wādī el-Ḥimār, some 14 miles North of the Jabboḳ (see Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 257), suits all the other references (compare Joshua 13^{26. 30}—the boundary of Gad and Manasseh), but is too far from the Jabboḳ for this narrative (verse ²³). On the ending, which is probably no real dual, see on 24¹⁰.

4‒14a. Jacob’s precautionary measures (Yahwist).—4. Isaac’s death and Esau’s settlement in the country afterwards occupied by his descendants are here assumed to have already taken place: otherwise Priestly-Code (36⁶).—5, 6. We note the extreme servility of Jacob’s language:—my lord ... thy servant ... find grace,—dictated by fear of his brother’s vengeance (27⁴¹). In substance the message is nothing but an announcement of his arrival and his great wealth (compare 33^{12 ff.}) The shepherd, with all his success, is at the mercy of the fierce marauder who was to ‘live by his sword’ (27⁴⁰).—7. The messengers return with the ominous news that Esau is already on the march with 400 men. How he was ready to strike so far north of his own territory is a difficulty (see page 415).—8, 9. Jacob’s first resource is to divide his company into two camps, in the hope that one might escape while the other was being captured. The arrangement is perhaps adverted to in 33⁸.—10‒13. Jacob’s prayer, consisting of an invocation (¹⁰), thanksgiving (¹¹), petition (¹²), and appeal to the divine faithfulness (¹³), is a classic model of Old Testament devotion (Gunkel); though the element of confession, so prominent in later supplications, is significantly absent.—12. mother with (or on) children] Hosea 10¹⁴; compare Deuteronomy 22⁶. A popular saying,—the mother conceived as bending over the children to protect them (Tuch).—14a. spent that night there] i.e., at Maḥanaim (verse ²²). We may suppose (with Wellhausen, Gunkel) that an explicit etymology, based on the ‘two camps’ (verses ^{8. 11}), preceded or followed this clause.

Verses ^10‒13 appear to be one of the later expansions of the Yahwistic narrative, akin to 13^14‒17 22^15‒18 26^3b‒5 28¹⁴. They can be removed without loss of continuity, ^14a being a natural continuation of ⁹. The insertion gives an interpretation to the ‘two camps’ at variance with the primary motive of the division (verse ⁹); and its spirit is different from that of the narrative in which it is embedded. Compare also חול הים with 22¹⁷, לא יספר מרב with 16¹⁰ 22¹⁷. See Gunkel 316.

4. לפניו] LXX omits—שדה אדום] (compare Judges 5⁴) is probably a gloss on ארצה שעיר.—5. תאמרון] compare 18^{28 ff.}—וָאֵחַר] for וָאֶֽאֱחַר (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 64 h).—6. ואשלחה] Cohortative form with vav consecutive—chiefly late; see Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 69 Obsolete, § 72; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 49 e.—8. וַיֵּצֶר] √ צרר intransitive = ‘be cramped’; on the form, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 p.—והגמלים] LXXᴬ omits and transposes ואת־הבקר ואת־הצאן.—שני מחנות] That this implies an etymology of Maḥanaim, and that Yahwist located the incident there, cannot reasonably be doubted (as by Holzinger). The name is obviously regarded as a dual (in contrast to verse ³), showing that the current pronunciation is very ancient (Dillmann).—9. האחת] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch האחד (masculine), which is demanded by the context, as well as by prevailing usage (Albrecht, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xvi. 52).—11. קטנתי מן] ‘too insignificant for’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 c.—הירדן הזה] The writer apparently locates Maḥanaim in the vicinity of the Jordan; but the allusion, in an editorial passage, has perhaps no great topographical importance.

14b‒22. The present for Esau (Elohist).—14. a present] Not ‘tribute’ (as often) in acknowledgment of vassalage, but (as 43¹¹, 2 Kings 8^{8 f.}) a gift to win favour.—17‒20. By arranging the cattle in successive droves following at considerable intervals, Jacob hopes to wear out Esau’s resentment by a series of surprises. The plan has nothing in common with the two ‘camps’ of verse ^{8 f.} in Yahwist.—21a. A repetition of ^19b: Jacob lays stress on this point, because the effect would obviously be weakened if a garrulous servant were to let out the secret that other presents were to follow.—21b. Let me pacify him] literally ‘cover’ (or ‘wipe clean’) his face,—the same figure, though in different language, as 20¹⁶. On כִּפֶּר, see The Old Testament in the Jewish Church², 381; A Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 128 f.—see his face] ‘obtain access to his presence’: compare 43^{3. 5} 44^{23. 26}, Exodus 10²⁸, 2 Samuel 14^{24. 28. 32}, 2 Kings 25¹⁹, Esther 1¹⁴. The phrase is thought to convey an allusion to Pĕnû’ēl (Gunkel); see on 33¹⁰.—22. spent ... camp (בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה)] compare ^14a. Wellhausen (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 46) renders ‘in Maḥaneh’ (i.e. Maḥanaim), but the change is hardly justified.

14. מן־הבא] Article with participle (not perfect); see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 138 k; Driver Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel 57 f.—מנחה] see on 4³.—17. רֶוַח (Esther 4¹⁴†)] √ רָוַח, ‘be wide’ (1 Samuel 16²³, Job 32²⁰).—18. On the forms יִֽפְגָּשְׁךָ (Ben Naphtali), יָֽפִגָֽשֲׁךָ (Ben Asher), see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 9 v, 10 g (c), 60 b, [and Baer-Delitzsch, Liber Genesis page 85]; and on ושאֵֽלך, § 64 f.—20. ויצו] LXX + τῷ πρώτῳ.—מֹצַֽאֲכֶם] irregular infinitive for מָצְאֲכֶם (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 74 h, 93 q).—21. יעקב] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan} + בָּא.

23‒33. The wrestling at Peniel (Jehovist).—23, 24. The crossing of the Jabboḳ. The Yabbōḳ is now almost universally, and no doubt correctly, identified with the Nahr es-Zerḳā (Blue River), whose middle course separates Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn from el-Belḳā, and which flows into the Jordan about 25 miles North of the Dead Sea. See Smend, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1902, 137 ff.; and the descriptions in Riehm, Assyrisches Handwörterbuch² 665; Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 583‒5.—The ford referred to cannot be determined; that of Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh, where the road from Ǧeraš to es-Salṭ crosses the deep narrow gorge which cleaves the mountains of Gilead, as described by Thomson (The Land and the Book, iii. 583 ff.) and Tristram (Land of Israel³, 549), supplies a more fitting background for the weird struggle about to be narrated than the one in the Jordan valley; but on the difficulties of this identification, see Driver The Expository Times, xiii. 459.

The passage of the river seems to be twice described, ^24a and ^24b being apparently doublets. The former continues ^23a, which belongs to Yahwist (שפחה). Following this clue, we may divide thus: ^{23a. 24a} = Yahwist; ^{23b. 24b} = Elohist (so Gunkel). While Elohist implies that Jacob crossed with his company, the account of Yahwist is consistent with the statement of ^25a, that after sending the others across he himself was ‘left alone.’ On any view the action is somewhat perplexing. To cross a ford by night, with flocks, etc., was a dangerous operation, only to be explained by apprehension of an attack from Esau (Wellhausen). But Esau is represented as advancing from the south; and Jacob is in haste to put his people and possessions on that side of the river on which they were exposed to attack. Either the narrative is defective at this point, or it is written without a clear conception of the actual circumstances.

23‒33. The analysis of the passage is beset by insurmountable difficulties. While most recognise doublets in ^{23 f.} (v.s.), ^25‒33 have generally been regarded as a unity, being assigned to Yahwist by Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin, Driver, al.; but by Dillmann to Elohist. In the view of more recent critics, both Yahwist and Elohist are represented, though there is the utmost variety of opinion in regard to details. In the notes above, possible variants have been pointed out in ^{26a ∥ 26b} (the laming of the thigh) and ^{28. 29 ∥ 30} (the name and the blessing); to these may be added the still more doubtful case ^{31 ∥ 32} (Peniel, Penuel). As showing traces of more primitive conceptions, ^26a and ³⁰ would naturally go together, and also ²⁷ for the same reason. Since Yahwist prefers the name Israel in the subsequent history, there is a slight presumption that ^{28 f.} belong to him; and the אלהים of ³¹ points (though not decisively) to Elohist. Thus we should obtain, for Elohist: ^{26a. 27. 30. 31}; leaving for Yahwist: ^{26b. 28. 29. 32}: verse ³³ may be a gloss. The result corresponds nearly, so far as it goes, with Gunkel’s (318 f.). The reader may compare the investigations of Holzinger (209 f.), Procksch (32), Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 57 f.).—23. בלילה הוא (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ההוא)] as 19³³ 30¹⁶.—יַבֹּק (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch היבק) (Numbers 21²⁴, Deuteronomy 2³⁷ 3¹⁶, Joshua 12², Judges 11^{13. 22}†) is naturally explained as the ‘gurgler,’ from √ בקק (Arabic baḳḳa), the resemblance to אבק (verse ²⁵) being, of course, a popular word-play.—24b. Insert כָּל־ before אשר (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate).

25. a man wrestled with him till the appearing of the dawn]—Only later does Jacob discover that his unknown antagonist is a god in human form (compare 18² 19⁵).—The rare word (v.i.) for ‘wrestle’ (אבק) is chosen because of the assonance with יבֹּק—26a. he saw that he prevailed not] The ambiguity of the subject extends to the next clause, and leaves two interpretations open (v.i.).—struck the socket of his thigh] putting it out of joint.—26b. the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated as he wrestled with him.

The dislocation of the thigh seems to be twice recorded (see Kautzsch-Socin An. 159), and it is highly probable that the two halves of the verse come from different sources. In ^26a it is a stratagem resorted to by a wrestler unable to gain the advantage by ordinary means (like the trick of Ulysses in Iliad xxiii. 725 ff.); in ^26b it is an accident which happens to Jacob in the course of the struggle. It has even been suggested that in the original legend the subject of ^26a was Jacob—that it was he who disabled his antagonist in the manner described (Holzinger, Gunkel, Cheyne: see Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 163¹; Luther, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxi. 65 ff.; Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 57). It is possible (though certainly not probable) that this was the view of the document (Yahwist or Elohist) to which ^26a belongs, and that it underlies Hosea 12⁵.

25. ויאבק] A verb used only here and verse ²⁶, distinct from New Hebrew התאבק, ‘make oneself dusty,’ and very probably a modification of חבק, ‘clasp’ (Delitzsch, Dillmann).—26. ותקע] √ יקע, literally ‘be rent away’ (compare Jeremiah 6⁸): LXX ἐνάρκησεν, Peshiṭtå , Vulgate emarcuit, Targum^Onkelos זע (‘gave way’),—all conjectural.

27. Let me go, for the dawn is breaking] Compare Plautus, Amphitryon 532 f., where Jupiter says: “Cur me tenes? Tempus est: exire ex urbe priusquam lucescat volo.” It is a survival of the wide-spread belief in spirits of the night which must vanish at dawn (Hamlet, Act 1. Scene i.); and as such, a proof of the extreme antiquity of the legend.—But the request reveals to Jacob the superhuman character of his adversary, and he resolves to hold him fast till he has extorted a blessing from him.—28, 29. Here the blessing is imparted in the form of a new name conferred on Jacob in memory of this crowning struggle of his life.—thou hast striven with God] Yisrā’ēl, probably = ‘God strives’ (v.i.), is interpreted as ‘Striver with God’; compare a similar transformation of יְרֻבַּֽעַל (‘Baal contends’) in Judges 6³². Such a name is a true ‘blessing,’ as a pledge of victory and success to the nation which bears it.—and with men] This can hardly refer merely to the contests with Laban and Esau; it points rather to the existence of a fuller body of legend, in which Jacob figured as the hero of many combats,culminating in this successful struggle with deity.—30. Jacob vainly endeavours to extort a disclosure of the name of his antagonist. This is possibly an older variant of ^28f., belonging to a primitive phase of thought, where he who possesses the true name of a god can dispose of the power of its bearer (Cheyne Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 401¹; A Dictionary of the Bible, v. 640). For the concealment of the name, compare Judges 13¹⁸ (the same words).—Gunkel thinks that in the original narrative the name of the wrestler was actually revealed.—31. Pĕnî’ēl] ‘Face of God’ (v.i.). The name is derived from an incidental feature of the experience: that Jacob had seen “God face to face” (Exodus 33¹¹, Deuteronomy 34¹⁰), and yet lived (see on 16¹³).—The site of Peniel is unknown: see Driver The Expository Times, xiii. 457 ff., and The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes 300 ff.—32. limping on his thigh] in consequence of the injury he had received (^26b). That he bore the hurt to his death, as a memorial of the conflict, is a gratuitous addition to the narrative.—33. The food-taboo here mentioned is nowhere else referred to in Old Testament; and the Mishnic prohibition (Ḥullîn, 7) is probably dependent on this passage. William Robertson Smith explains it from the sacredness of the thigh as a seat of life (Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 380¹);¹ and Wellhausen (Reste arabischen Heidentums 168³) calls attention to a trace of it in ancient Arabia. For primitive parallels, see Frazer, Golden Bough, ii. 419 ff., Folklore in Old Testament, 142 f. The precise meaning of גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה is uncertain (v.i.).

¹ “The nature of the lameness produced by injury to the sinew of the thigh socket is explained by the Arabic lexicons, s.v. ḥārifat; the man can only walk on the tips of his toes. This seems to have been a common affection, for poetical metaphors are taken from it.”

In its fundamental conception the struggle at Peniel is not a dream or vision like that which came to Jacob at Bethel; nor is it an allegory of the spiritual life, symbolising the inward travail of a soul helpless before some overhanging crisis of its destiny. It is a real physical encounter which is described, in which Jacob measures his strength and skill against a divine antagonist, and ‘prevails,’ though at the cost of a bodily injury. No more boldly anthropomorphic narrative is found in Genesis; and unless we shut our eyes to some of its salient features, we must resign the attempt to translate it wholly into terms of religious experience. We have to do with a legend, originating at a low level of religion, in process of accommodation to the purer ideas of revealed religion; and its history may have been somewhat as follows: (1) We begin with the fact of a hand-to-hand conflict between a god and a man. A similar idea appears in Exodus 4^{24 ff.}, where we read that Yahwe met Moses and ‘sought to kill him.’ In the present passage the god was probably not Yahwe originally, but a local deity, a night-spirit who fears the dawn and refuses to disclose his name. Dr. Frazer has pointed out that such stories as this are associated with water-spirits, and cites many primitive customs (Folklore in the Old Testament, 136 ff.) which seem to rest on the belief that a river resents being crossed, and drowns many who attempt it. He hazards the conjecture that the original deity of this passage was the spirit of the Jabboḳ; in which case the word-play between יַבֹּק and אבק may have greater significance than appears on the surface. (2) Like many patriarchal theophanies, the narrative accounts for the foundation of a sanctuary—that of Peniel. Of the cultus at Peniel we know nothing; and there is very little in the story that can be supposed to bear upon it, unless we assume, with Gunkel and others, that the limping on the thigh refers to a ritual dance regularly observed there (compare 1 Kings 18²⁶).¹ (3) By Yahwist and Elohist the story was incorporated in the national epos as part of the history of Jacob. The God who wrestles with the patriarch is Yahwe; and how far the wrestling was understood as a literal fact remains uncertain. To these writers the main interest lies in the origin of the name Israel, and the blessing bestowed on the nation in the person of its ancestor. (4) A still more refined interpretation is found, it seems to me, in Hosea 12^{4. 5}: ‘In the womb he overreached his brother; and in his prime he strove with God. He strove (וַיִּשֶׂר) with the Angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication to him.’ The substitution of the Angel of Yahwe for the divine Being Himself shows increasing sensitiveness to anthropomorphism; and the last line appears to mark an advance in the spiritualising of the incident, the subject being not the Angel (as Gunkel and others hold), but Jacob, whose ‘prevailing’ thus becomes that of importunate prayer.—We may note in a word Steuernagel’s ethnological interpretation. He considers the wrestling to symbolise a victory of the invading Israelites over the inhabitants of North Gilead. The change of name reflects the fact that a new nation (Israel) arose from the fusion of the Jacob and Rachel tribes (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 61 f.).

29. יִשְׂרָאֵל] A name of the same type as ישמעאל, ירחמאל, etc., with some such meaning as ‘God strives’ or ‘Let God strive’; originally (it has been suggested) a war-cry which passed into a proper name (see Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 61). The verb שׂרה, however, only occurs in connexion with this incident (Hosea 12^{4. 5}, where read וַיִּשֶׂר), and in the personal name שְׂרָיָה; and its real meaning is uncertain. If it be the Hebrew equivalent of Arabic šariya, Driver argues that it must mean ‘persist’ or ‘persevere’ rather than ‘strive’ (A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 530), which hardly yields a suitable idea. Some take it as a by-form of שׂרר, either in a denominative sense (‘rule,’ from שַׂר, prince), or in its assumed primary significance ‘shine forth’ (Assyrian šarâru: see Vollers, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, ix. 184). Some doubt has even been thrown on the traditional Hebrew pronunciation by the form Ysir’r, found on an inscription of Merneptah (Steindorff, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xvi. 330 ff.), with which we may compare Assyrian Sir-’-lai (= ישראלי) (see Kittel, SBOT Chronicles, page 58). Compare also Cheyne Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 404.—שרית] LXX ἐνίσχυσας, Aquila ἦρξας, Symmachus ἤρξω, Vulgate fortis fuisti, Peshiṭtå , Targum^Onkelos רַב אַתּ.—31. פניאל] LXX Εἶδος θεοῦ, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Symmachus, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read פנואל as verse ³². The formal difference arises from the old case-endings of genitive and nominative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 o). Strabo (XVI. ii. 16, 18) mentions a Phœnician promontory near Tripolis called Θεοῦ πρόσωπον: it is not improbable that in both cases the name is derived from a fancied resemblance to a face.—33. גיד הנשה] נָשֶׁה is to be explained by Arabic nas^an (for nasay^un), which means the nervus ischiadicus, or the thigh in which it is found (Gesenius Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti 921 f.). The question remains whether גיד denotes here a nerve, an artery, a sinew, or a muscle; the first seems by far the most probable. So it seems to have been understood by Peshiṭtå ( = tetanus-nerve), and by LXX and Vulgate, which appear to have connected נשה with the verb for ‘forget’ (Græcus-Venetus, τὸ νεῦρον τὸ ἐπιλελησμένον!). The modern Jewish restriction applies, according to Delitzsch, to the “Spannader, d. h. die innere Ader des sogen. Hinterviertels mit Einschluss der äusseren und der Verästelungen beider.”