Chapter XXVI · 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 20^{1 f.}) is followed by his denial of his marriage with Rebekah (^7‒11 ∥ 12^{10 ff.} 20^{2 ff.}), his success in agriculture (^12‒16,—the only circumstance without an Abrahamic parallel), his quarrels with the Philistines about wells (^17‒22 ∥ 21^{25 f.}), and, lastly, the Covenant of Beersheba, with an account of the naming of the place (^23‒33 ∥ 21^22‒34).—The notice of Esau’s wives (^{34 f.}) is an excerpt from Priestly-Code.

Source.—The style, except in ^{34 f.} and some easily recognised redactional patches (^{1aβγ. 2aβb. 3b‒5. 15. 18}: see the notes), is unmistakably Yahwistic: compare יהוה (^{2. 12. 22. 25} [even in the mouth of Abimelech, ^{28. 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 f.}, 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 Yahwist^Hebron in the history of Abraham. (1) The Abrahamic parallels all belong to the Negeb tradition (Yahwist^Beersheba and Elohist); and it is natural to think that Yahwist^Hebron, 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 Yahwist^Hebron (magnanimity, peaceableness, etc.).—In any case, it is to be observed that the chapter stands out of its proper order. The Rebekah of ^{7 ff.} 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 Testaments² 30).

1‒6. Isaac migrates to Gerar.—Cleared of interpolations, the section reads: (^1aα) There was a famine in the land; (^1b) and Isaac went to Abimelech, king of the Philistines, to Gerar. (^2aα) 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 20^{1 f.}. The assumption that Gerar was a Philistine kingdom is an anachronism (see on 10¹⁴), made also in Yahwist^Beersheba (21³²) but not in Elohist.—3a. and bless thee] a promise fulfilled in Isaac’s successful husbandry (^{12 ff.}), and other tokens of the divine favour (^{22. 24. 28 f.}), with no reference primarily to the blessing of Abraham.

^1aβγ (מלבד—אברהם) is a redactional gloss (Redactor^Jahwist or Redactor^Jehovist), pointing back to 12¹⁰.—^2aβb (אל־תרד וגו׳) is obviously inconsistent with ^3a, and is best explained as a gloss from the same hand as ^1aβγ (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 ^1aα and ⁶; but the evidence is too weak to warrant the improbable hypothesis of a second Elohist version of 20^{1 ff.}.—^3b‒5 an expansion in the manner of 22^15‒18, 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 12^{10 ff.} 20, 26^7‒11 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 12^{10 ff.} (Yahwist^Beersheba) 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 26^{7 ff.} (Yahwist^Hebron) 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—Yahwist^Beersheba, Elohist, Yahwist^Hebron. 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 ff.} 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 21^{25 f.}.—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 21^{25 f.}) ascribed the discovery and naming of them to Abraham. Verses ^{15. 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 3^{19. 25}, 2 Chronicles 32^{3. 4. 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, Targum^Onkelos 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 12^{7 f.} 13^{4. 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 f.}: the consecration of the sanctuary and the naming of the place are separate things which were evidently kept distinct in Yahwist^Beersheba (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 16^{16 f.}, 1 Kings 4⁵, 1 Chronicles 27³³).—Pîkōl] see on 21²².—27. See verses ^{14. 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 15^{17 f.}).—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 31^{53 f.}), 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 (Yahwist^Beersheba) 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 Yahwist^Hebron 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 Targum^Onkelos 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 14^{11. 20} 15^{2. 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 10^{2. 6 f.}†) 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 (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 36^{2 f.}.

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 Testaments² 34‒36): (a) ^{33. 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 ^{11‒13. 16} ∥ ¹⁵: in the one case Jacob is disguised by the skin of the kids, in the other by wearing Esau’s clothes.—(d) ^30aα ∥ ^30bβ.—(e) ^44b ∥ ^45aα (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, 35^{3. 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 ^{11‒13. 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 (^{33. 27}) Isaac is ignorant who it is that has personated Esau, whereas in Elohist (^{35. 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 ^{19. 25. 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 (48^{10 ff.} 50^{24 f.}, Deuteronomy 33, Joshua 23, 2 Samuel 23^{1 ff.}, 1 Kings 2^{1 ff.}, 2 Kings 13^{14 ff.}).—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 10^{5 f.}, 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 22^{1. 7. 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, Targum^Jonathan, Abraham Ibn Ezra) than of the ‘sword’ (Targum^Onkelos, 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 Semites², 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 26^{34 f.}).—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 (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 ^{18. 19a. 21‒23. 28} = Elohist ∥ ^{19b. 20. 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 ^{10. 14. 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 (^{27b. 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 49^{22 ff.}, Deuteronomy 33^{13 ff.}; 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 2^{8. 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). ^29aα (to לאמים) is Yahwist because of the last word (25²³); and ^29b because of the resemblance to 12³. ^29aβ (from הוה) is Elohist (compare ³⁷): (so Gunkel). Kautzsch-Socin and Holzinger differ first in treating ^29aβb as wholly ∥ ^29aα, thus assigning ^29aα to Elohist and ^aβ 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, Targum^Onkelos 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 ^{29aβ. 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 8^{20 ff.}), 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 28^{2. 4. 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 f.} 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 (∥ ^38aα) 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׳] LXX^{A, al.} 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, ^{2. 5. 6. 7}; פָּרָה וְרָבָה, ³; אֶרֶץ מְגֻרִים ⁴; בְּנוֹת כְּנַעַן ^{1. 6. 8} (Yahwist בּ׳ הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי, 24^{3. 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 24^{3. 37}.—2. thy mother’s father] The earlier affinity between the two families is again ignored by Priestly-Code: see on 25^{19 f.}.—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 36^{6 f.}). 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 26^{34 f.}, though in 28^{1 ff.} Priestly-Code consistently uses ב׳ כנען. LXX, however, omits the words מִבְּנוֹת־חֵת כָּאֵלֶּה.—2. פדנה] (so ^{5. 7}) compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 i.—3. קהל עמים] 35¹¹ 48⁴ (Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 23²⁴ 32³; = הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם 17^{4 f.}. 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 27^{43 f.} (Dillmann al.).—9. אל־ישמעאל] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch omitted.—מַֽחֲלַת] Peshiṭtå (compare Targum^Jonathan); 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 f. 17‒22}), with a Yahwistic insertion (^13‒16). For Elohist, compare אלהים; ^{12. 17. 20}; מַצֵּבָה, ^{18. 22}; the dream, ¹²; the tithe, ²²; and the retrospective references in 31¹³ 35^{3. 7}. For Yahwist, יהוה ^{13 (bis). 16}; נִצָּב עַל ¹³, and the resemblances to 12^{3. 7} 13^{15 f.} 18¹⁸ 22^{15 ff.} 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 22^14‒18, 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 19^{13. 16} 26^{7. 11. 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 ^16aα, as well as the word שֹׁכֵב in ¹³. The promise is partly addressed to Jacob’s special circumstances (^{13. 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 13^{14 ff.} 22^{17 f.} 26^{4. 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 30^{30. 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 Orients², 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 (31^{13. 45. 51. 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 10^{1 f.}, 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 16^{21 f.}; Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 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 f.}), 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 Heidentums² 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 Culture³ ii. 160 ff.; Frazer, Pausanias’s Description of Greece iv. 154 f., Adonis, 21; Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 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 (Études², 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 Testament³, 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 24^11‒33 and Exodus 2^15‒22, 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 Targum^Jonathan thinks it necessary to introduce a hint of the coming rivalry into the conversation between Jacob and Rachel (verse ¹³).

Analysis.—Fragments of Priestly-Code’s narrative can be easily recognised in verses ^{24. 29}, and probably also in ^28b. The separation of Yahwist and Elohist is uncertain on account of the close parallelism of the two documents and the absence of material differences of representation to support or correct the literary analysis. Most subsequent critics agree with Dillmann that verse ¹ belongs to Elohist (see the notes), and ^2‒14 to Yahwist: compare רוץ לקראת, ¹³ (18² 24¹⁷); עצמי ובשרי, ¹⁴ (2²³). In ^{16 f.} Rachel appears to be introduced for the first time; hence Dillmann regards Elohist as the main source of ¹⁵ (or ^15b) ^‒30, excluding, however, verse ²⁶, where צְעִירָה and בְּכִירָה reveal the hand of Yahwist: characteristic expressions of Elohist are משכרת, ¹⁵ (31^{7. 41}); גדלה and קטנה, ^{16. 18}; יפת תאר וגו׳, ¹⁷. So Gunkel, Procksch nearly. Ball and Cornill assign all from ¹⁹ onwards to Yahwist.

1‒14. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel.—1. the sons of the East] Since the goal of Jacob’s journey is in Yahwist, Ḥarran (28¹⁰ 29⁴) and in Priestly-Code, Paddan Aram (28⁷), it is to be presumed that this third variation comes from Elohist (Dillmann). Now the בְּנֵי קֶדֶם are everywhere else the tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, and 31^{21 ff.} certainly suggests that Laban’s home was not so distant from Canaan as Ḥarran (see on 24^{10 f.} [city of Nahor]). It is possible, therefore, that in the tradition followed by Elohist, Laban was the representative of the nomadic Aramæans between Palestine and the Euphrates (see page 334 above).—2. The well in the open country is evidently distinct, even in Yahwist, from the town-well of Ḥarran (compare 24¹³).—For ... they used to water, etc.] To the end of verse ³ is an explanatory parenthesis describing the ordinary procedure. The custom of covering the well with a heavy stone is referred to by Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 490; Thomson, The Land and the Book, 589; Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus ii. 319 f.; compare also Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 94.—4. Jacob accosts the shepherds, and learns that they come from Ḥarran. There is nothing else in the narrative to suggest the proximity of a great city; Laban is no city-dweller as in chapter 24, but a nomad sheikh; and the life depicted is everywhere that of the desert. All this confirms the impression that the topography of Elohist (verse ¹) has been modified by Yahwist in accordance with the theory that Ḥarran was the city of Nahor.—5. the son of Nāḥôr] see on 24¹⁵.—7, 8. Jacob is puzzled by the leisurely ways of these Eastern herdsmen, whom he ironically supposes to have ceased work for the day. He is soon to show them an example of how things should be done, careless of the conventions which they plead as an excuse.—9. a shepherdess] compare Exodus 2¹⁶. The trait is in accordance with the freedom still allowed to unmarried girls among the Bedouin. Burckhardt found it an established rule among the Arabs of Sinai that only girls should drive the cattle to pasture (Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, i. 351).—10. The removal of the stone is a feat of strength which has been thought to belong to a more primitive legend, in which Jacob figured as a giant (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.): compare 32²⁶.—11. wept aloud] ‘after the demonstrative fashion of the Oriental’ (Bennett),—tears of joy at the happy termination of his journey.—12. brother] as in verse ¹⁵ 13⁸ 14¹⁴ (24⁴⁸?).—13. kissed him repeatedly (Piel)] The effusive display of affection, perhaps not wholly disinterested, is characteristic of Laban (compare 24^{29 ff.}).—14. my bone and my flesh] as 37²⁷, Judges 9², 2 Samuel 5¹ 19^{13 f.}. It is an absurd suggestion that the exclamation is called forth by the recital of Jacob’s dealings with Esau, in which Laban recognised a spiritual affinity to himself! The phrase denotes literal consanguinity and nothing more.

1. The curious expression ‘lifted up his feet’ is found only here.—LXX, Vulgate omit בְּנֵי; and LXX adds to the verse πρὸς Λαβὰν κτλ., as 28^5b.—2. והאבן גדלה can only mean ‘and the stone was great’: it is perhaps better to omit the article (with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch).—3. העדרים] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch הרעים, needlessly substituted by Ball. So also verse ⁸, where The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch is supported by LXX.—6. Before והנה, LXX inserts ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος (as verse ⁹). An assimilating tendency reappears at the end of the verse; and the variations have no critical value.—9. ב֫אה] perfect; contrast the participle בא֫ה in verse ⁶.—רעה הוא] LXX + τὰ πρόβατα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς.—10. ויגל] with original i in imperfect Qal (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 p).—13. שמע (LXX שֵׁם) = ‘the report concerning,’ followed as always by genitive objective.—14. חדש ימים] ‘a whole month’; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 131 d.

15‒30. Jacob’s double marriage.—15. Laban’s character begins to unfold itself as that of a man ostensibly actuated by the most honourable motives, but at heart a selfish schemer, always ready with some plausible pretext for his nefarious conduct (see verses ^{19. 26}). His apparently generous offer proves a well-laid trap for Jacob, whose love for Rachel has not escaped the notice of his shrewd kinsman.—16‒18a. An explanatory parenthesis. The manner in which Rachel is introduced, as if for the first time, is thought to mark the transition to another source (Dillmann al.).—On the names Lē’āh and Rāḥēl, v.i.—17. Leah’s eyes were weak (רַכּוֹת, LXX ἀσθενεῖς, Aquila, Symmachus ἁπαλοί): i.e. they lacked the lustrous brilliancy which is counted a feature of female beauty in the East.—18b. Jacob, not being in a position to pay the purchase price (mōhar) for so eligible a bride, offered seven years’ service instead. The custom was recognised by the ancient Arabs, and is still met with (Wellhausen Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1893, 433 f.; Burckhardt Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, i. 297 f.).—19. The first cousin has still a prior (sometimes an exclusive) right to a girl’s hand among the Bedouin and in Egypt (Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, i. 113, 272; Lane, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians⁵ i. 199).—22. Laban proceeds to the execution of his long meditated coup. He himself arranges the marriage feast (contrast Judges 14¹⁰), inviting all the men of the place, with a view doubtless to his self-exculpation (verse ²⁶).—23. The substitution of Leah for Rachel was rendered possible by the custom of bringing the bride to the bridegroom veiled (24⁶⁵). To have thus got rid of the unprepossessing Leah for a handsome price, and to retain his nephew’s services for other seven years (verse ²⁷), was a master-stroke of policy in the eyes of a man like Laban.—25. Jacob’s surprise and indignation are vividly depicted.—26. It is not so done] compare 34⁷, 2 Samuel 13¹². Laban no doubt correctly states the local usage: the objection to giving a younger daughter before an older is natural, and prevails in certain countries (Lane, i. 201; compare Jubilees xxviii., Judges 15^{1 f.}, 1 Samuel 18¹⁷).—27, 28. Fulfil the week of this one] i.e., the usual seven days (Judges 14¹², Tobit 11¹⁹) of the wedding festival for Leah. For the bridegroom to break up the festivities would, of course, be a gross breach of decorum, and Jacob has no alternative but to fall in with Laban’s new proposal and accept Rachel on his terms.—30. Laban’s success is for the moment complete; but in the alienation of both his daughters, and their fidelity to Jacob at a critical time (31^{14 ff.}), he suffered a just retribution for the unscrupulous assertion of his paternal rights.

In Jacob’s marriages it has been surmised that features survive of that primitive type of marriage (called beena marriage) in which the husband becomes a member of the wife’s kin (William Robertson Smith Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 207). Taken as a whole the narrative hardly bears out that view. It is true that Jacob attaches himself to Laban’s family; but it does not follow that he did not set up a house of his own. His remaining with Laban was due to his inability to pay the mōhar otherwise than in the way of personal service. As soon as the contract expired he pleads his right to ‘provide for his own house’ (30³⁰ Yahwist). On the other hand, Laban certainly claimed the right to detain his daughters, and treated them as still members of his family (31^{26. 43} Elohist); and it might be imagined that the Elohistic tradition recognised the existence of beena marriage, at least among the Aramæans. But it is doubtful if the claim is more than an extreme assertion of the right of a powerful family to protect its female relatives even after marriage.

15. הכי] see on 27³⁶.—מַשְׂכֹּרֶת] 31^{7. 41} (Elohist), Ruth 2¹²†; שָׂכָר is common to Yahwist (30^{28. 32 f.}) and Elohist (31⁸, Exodus 2⁹).—16. גדל and קטן are in such connexions characteristic of Elohist (verse ¹⁸ 42^{13. 15. 20. 32. 34}); see Holzinger Einleitung in den Hexateuch 104.—רָחֵל means ‘ewe’ (Arabic raḫil = she-lamb); hence by analogy לֵאָה has been explained by Arabic la’āt, ‘bovine antelope’ (see Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xl. 167; Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, i. 112 ff.), and the names are cited as evidence of a primitive Hebrew totemism (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 254 f.). Others prefer the derivation from Assyrian li’at, ‘lady’ (see Haupt, Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1883, 100).—18. ברחל] בְּ pretii (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 p); so ^{20. 25}.—20. ויהיו—אתה] LXXᴬ omits.—21. הב֫ה] Milra‛ before א (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 o).—24. שפחה] better לְשִׁ׳ (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Targum^Onkelos); see verse ²⁹.—26. הצעירה] distinctive of Yahwist; see verse ¹⁶.—27. וְנִתְּנָה is rather 3rd feminine, singular, perfect, Niphal, than 1st plural cohortative Qal (as most). The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאֶתֵּן.—28b. לו לאשה] The double dative is characteristic of Priestly-Code, to whom the whole clause may be assigned along with ²⁹.—30. The second גּם has no sense, and should probably be deleted (LXX, Vulgate).

XXIX. 31‒XXX. 24. The Birth of Jacob’s Children (Jehovist).

A difficult section, in which the origin of the tribes of Israel is represented in the fictitious form of a family history. The popular etymologies attached to the names are here extremely forced, and sometimes unintelligible; it is remarkable that, with hardly an exception, they are based on the rivalry between Jacob’s two wives. (The names are bestowed by the mothers, as is generally the case in Jehovist.) How far genuine elements of tradition are embodied in such a narrative is a question which it is obviously impossible to answer with certainty. We cannot be wrong in attributing historical significance to the distinction between the tribes whose descent was traced to Jacob’s wives and those regarded as sons of concubines; though we are ignorant of the actual circumstances on which the classification depends. It is also certain that there is a solid basis for the grouping of the chief tribes under the names of Leah and Rachel, representing perhaps an older and a later settlement of Hebrews in Palestine (Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, i. 112 f.). The fact that all the children except Benjamin are born in Mesopotamia may signify that the leading tribal divisions existed before the occupation of Canaan; but the principle certainly cannot be applied in detail, and the nature of the record forbids the attempt to discover in it reliable data for the history of the tribes. (For a conspectus of various theories, see Luther, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxi. 36 ff.; compare Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 291 f., 509 ff.)

The sources are Yahwist and Elohist, with occasional clauses from Priestly-Code.—29^31‒35 is wholly from Yahwist (יהוה, ^{31. 32. 33. 35}; עֲקָרָה, ³¹; הַפַּעַם, ^{34. 35}), with the possible exception of ^32bγ.—30^1‒8 is mainly Elohist (אלהים, ^{2. 6. 8}; אָמָה, ^3a); but ^3aβ reminds us of Yahwist (16²), ^4a is assigned to Priestly-Code (שִׁפְחָה and compare 16³), and in ⁷ שִׁפְחָה must be either from Yahwist (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel) or Priestly-Code (Holzinger).—30^9‒13 is again mostly from Yahwist (שִׁפְחָה, ^{10. 12}; compare ^9a with 29³¹ 30¹ 29³⁵). ^9b is Priestly-Code.—30^14‒24 presents a very mixed text, whose elements are difficult to disentangle; note the double etymologies in ^18. (compare ¹⁶) ^{20. 23 f.} The hand of Elohist clearly appears in ^{17a. 18. 20aαβ. 22bα}. (^22a may be from Priestly-Code: compare 8¹) ²³. Hence the parallels ^{14‒16. 20aγ. 24} must be assigned to Yahwist, who is further characterised, according to Gunkel, by the numeration of the sons (^{17b. 19. 20aγ}). ²¹ is interpolated.

31‒35. The sons of Leah.—31. hated] The rendering is too strong. שְׂנוּאָה is almost a technical term for the less favoured of two wives (Deuteronomy 21^{15 ff.}); where the two are sisters the rivalry is naturally most acute, hence this practice is forbidden by the later law (Leviticus 18¹⁸). The belief that Yahwe takes the part of the unfortunate wife and rewards her with children, belongs to the strongly marked family religion of Israel (1 Samuel 1^{2 ff.}).—32. Rĕ’ûbēn] The only plausible explanation of the etymology is that it is based on the form רְאוּבֵל (v.i.) = רְאוּ־בַעַל, and that יהוה is substituted for the divine name בַּֽעַל. Most commentaries suppose that the writer resolves ראובן into רָאָ[ה] בְ[עָ]נְ[יִי]; but that is too extravagant for even a Hebrew etymologist.—33. Šim‛ôn] derived from שָׁמַע, ‘hear,’ expressing precisely the same idea as Rĕ’ûbēn.—34. Lēvî, as the third son, is explained by a verb for ‘adhere’ (Niphal √ לוה), on the principle that a threefold cord is not easily broken.—35. Yĕhûdāh] connected with a word meaning ‘praise’ (הוֹדָה: compare imperfect יְהוֹדֶה, Nehemiah 11¹⁷). So in 49⁸.

32. רְאוּבֵן] LXX Ῥουβην, etc.; Peshiṭtå ; Josephus Ῥουβηλος. The origin of the name has given rise to an extraordinary number of conjectures (see Hogg, Encyclopædia Biblica, 4091 ff.). We seem driven to the conclusion that the original form (that on which the etymology is based: v.s.) was ראובל. In that form the name has been connected with Arabic ri’bāl, ‘lion,’ or ‘wolf,’ in which case Reuben might have to be added to the possibly totemistic names of the Old Testament. Another plausible suggestion is that the word is softened from רְעוּ־בַעַל a theophorous compound after the analogy of רְעוּאֵל—33. After בֵּן, LXX inserts שֵׁנִי, which may be correct (compare 30^{7. 12. 17. 19. 24}).—שִׁמְעוֹן] Another supposed animal name, from Arabic sim‛, a cross between the wolf and hyæna (see William Robertson Smith The Journal of Philology ix. 80). Ewald regarded it as a diminutive of יִשְׁמָעֵאל, and similarly recently Cheyne (Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 375).—34. קרא] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX^Lucian, Peshiṭtå קָֽרְאָה; LXXᴬ ἐκλήθη.—לֵוִי] Wellhausen’s conjecture that this is the gentilic of לֵאָה is widely accepted (Stade, William Robertson Smith, Nöldeke, Meyer, al.). Hommel, on the other hand, compares South Arabian lavi’u = ‘priest,’ Levi being the priestly tribe (The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 278 f.; compare Benzinger Hebräische Archäologie² 56).

XXX. 1‒8. Rachel’s adopted sons.—1, 2. A passionate scene, showing how Rachel was driven by jealousy of her sister to yield her place to her maid. Her petulant behaviour recalls that of Sarah (16⁵), but Jacob is less patient than Abraham.—Am I in God’s stead?] So 50¹⁹, compare 2 Kings 5⁷.—3. bear upon my knees] An allusion to a primitive ceremony of adoption, which here simply means that Bilhah’s children will be acknowledged by Rachel as her own.—obtain children by her] see on 16².—6. The putative mother names the adopted child.—Dân] The etymology here given (√ דִּין, ‘judge’) is very probably correct, the form being an abbreviated theophorous name (compare, Abi-dan, Assyrian Asshur-dan, etc.).—8. wrestlings of God I have wrestled] The words are very obscure (see Cheyne 376 ff.). Either ‘I have had “a veritable God’s bout” (Ball) with my sister,’ or (less probably) ‘I have wrestled with God (in prayer) like my sister.’—and have overcome] This seems to imply that Leah had only one son at the time (Gunkel); and there is nothing to prevent the supposition that the concubinage of Bilhah followed immediately on the birth of Reuben.

On the ceremony referred to, see Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vi. 143 ff.; Holzinger 196; Driver 274. Its origin is traced to a widespread custom, according to which, in lawful marriage, the child is actually brought forth on the father’s knees (compare Job 3¹²; Iliad ix. 455 f.; Odyssey xix. 401 ff.); then it became a symbol of the legitimisation of a natural child, and finally a form of adoption generally (50²³). Gunkel, however, thinks the rite originated in cases like the present (the slave being delivered on the knees of her mistress), and was afterwards transferred to male adoption.

3. בִּלְהָה] (of unknown etymology) is probably to be connected with the Ḥorite clan בִּלהָן (36²⁷).—6. דָּנַנִּי] On the form, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 26 g.—7aβb must be assigned to Yahwist, on account of שׁפחה and בן שני (note also the expression of subject after second verb).—8. נפתולי] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The verb has nowhere else the sense of ‘wrestle,’ but means primarily to ‘twist’ (compare Proverbs 8⁸, Job 5¹³, Psalms 18²⁷†); hence נַפְתָּלִי might be the ‘tortuous,’ ‘cunning’ one (Brown-Driver-Briggs). But a more plausible etymology derives it from a hypothetical Naphtal (from נֶפֶת [Joshua 17¹¹†,—if correctly vocalised], usually taken to mean ‘height’: compare כַּרְמֶל from כֶּרֶם), denoting the northern highlands West of the Upper Jordan (Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 539).—The Versions render the verb more or less paraphrastically, and give no help to the elucidation of the sense.

9‒13. Leah’s adopted sons.—11. Gad is the name of an Aramæan and Phœnician god of Luck (Τύχη), mentioned in Isaiah 65¹¹ (see Cambridge Bible, ad loc.; compare Baethgen, Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins 76 ff. 159 ff.). There is no difficulty in supposing that a hybrid tribe like Gad traced its ancestry to this deity, and was named after him; though, of course, no such idea is expressed in the text. In Leah’s exclamation the word is used appellatively: With luck! (v.i.). It is probable, however, that at an earlier time it was current in the sense ‘With Gad’s help’ (Ball, Gunkel).—13. The name ’Āšēr naturally suggested to Hebrew writers a word for happiness; hence the two etymologies: בְּאָשְׁרִי ‘In my happiness,’ and אִשְּׁרוּנִי ‘(women) count me happy.’ It is possible that the name is historically related to the Canaanite goddess ’Ašērāh (Ball, Holzinger), as Gad is to the Aramæan deity. Aser appears in Egyptian monuments as the name of a district in North-west Palestine as early as Seti and Ramses II. (Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 236 ff.).

10. Both here and verse ¹² LXX gives a much fuller text.—11. בְּגד] So Kethîb, LXX Ἐν τύχῃ, Vulgate Feliciter. But Qrê בָּא גָ֑ד is ancient, being presupposed by Syrian ( ) and Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan}. These Versions render ‘Good fortune comes’ (so Rashi): another translation, suggested by 49¹⁹, is ‘A troop (גְּדוּד) comes’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra).

13. אשֶׁר is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.—אִשְּׁרוּנִי] perfect of confidence (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 n). It is to be noted that perfects greatly preponderate in Elohist’s etymologies, and imperfects in those of Yahwist; the two exceptions (29^{32 f.}) may be only apparent, and due to the absence of definite stylistic criteria.

14‒24. The later children.—14‒16. The incident of the love-apples is a piece of folklore, adopted with reserve by the writer (Yahwist), and so curtailed as to be shorn of its original significance. The story must have gone on to tell how Rachel partook of the fruit and in consequence became pregnant, while Leah also conceived through the restoration of her marriage rights (see Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 38 f.). How much of this stood in Yahwist and has been suppressed in the history of the text we cannot say; we here read just what is necessary to explain the name of Leah’s child.—14. דּוּדָאִים (v.i.) is the round, greenish-yellow, plum-like fruit of mandragora vernalis, which in Syria ripens in May—the days of wheat harvest—and is still eagerly sought in the East to promote conception (see Tuch’s note, 385 ff.). Reuben is named, probably as the only child old enough to follow the reapers in the field (compare 2 Kings 4¹⁸). The agricultural background shows that the episode is out of place in its present nomadic setting.—15. he shall lie with thee to-night] Jacob, therefore, had wrongly withheld from Leah her conjugal rights (עוֹנָה, Exodus 21¹⁰).—16. I have hired thee (שָׂכֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ)] Obviously an anticipation of Yahwist’s lost etymology of Issachar.—18. Elohist’s interpretation of יִשָּׂשׂכָר, which is, of course, independent of the story of the mandrakes. The name is resolved either into אישׁ שָׂכָר, ‘man of hire,’ or into יֵשׁ שָׂכָר, ‘there is a reward’ (Tuch, Dillmann); or else the י and quiescent ש are simply dropped (Gunkel): v.i.—20. Two etymologies of Zĕbûlûn; the first from Elohist (אלהים), and the second, therefore, from Yahwist: both are somewhat obscure (v.i.).—21. Dînāh] The absence of an etymology, and the fact that Dinah is excluded from the enumeration of 32²³, make it probable that the verse is interpolated with a view to chapter 34.—22‒24. At last Rachel bears a son, long hoped for and therefore marked out for a brilliant destiny—Yôsēph.—23b, 24b. Elohist derives the name from אָסַף, ‘take away’; Yahwist more naturally from יָסַף, ‘add’: May Yahwe add to me another son!

14. דּוּדָאִים (Canticles 7¹⁴†)] LXX μῆλα μανδραγόρου, Peshiṭtå , Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan} יברוחין (= Arabic yabrūh, explained to be the root of the plant). The singular is דּוּדַי, from the same √ as דּוֹד, ‘lover,’ and דּוֹדִים ‘love’; and very probably associated with the love-god דודה (Meša, 1. 12). Cheyne plausibly suggests (379) that this deity was worshipped by the Reubenites; hence Reuben is the finder of the apples.—15. לָהּ] LXX לֵאָה, Peshiṭtå לה לאה.—וְלָקַחַת (infinitive)] Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 204; but וְלָקַחַתְּ (perfect future) would be easier.—16. תָּבוֹא] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX + הַלַּיְלָה.—בַּֽלַּיְלָה הוּא] see on 19³³.—17a is from Elohist; but 17b probably from Yahwist, on account of the numeral.—18aβ, while correctly expressing the idea of Elohist, contains the word שִׁפְחָה, which Elohist avoids; and is therefore probably redactional.—18b. יִשָּׂשכָר] So Ben Asher regularly, with Qrê perpetuum יִשָּׂכָר: B. Naphtali has יִשְׂשָׂכָר, or יִשְׁשָׂכָר (see Baer-Delitzsch Liber Genesis 84 f.; Ginsburg, Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible 250 ff.). The duplication of the ש cannot be disposed of as a Massoretic caprice, and is most naturally explained by the assumption that two components were recognised, of which the first was אִישׁ (Wellhausen Der Text der Bücher Samuelis, page v). For the second component Wellhausen refers to the שָׂכָר of 1 Chronicles 11³⁵ 26⁴; Ball compares an Egyptian deity Sokar; while Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 536) is satisfied with the interpretation ‘man of hire,’ corresponding to the description of the tribe in Genesis 49^{14 f.}.—20. זֶבֶד, זְבָדַנִי] The √ (except in proper names) is not found in the Old Testament, but is explained by Aramaic (compare , ‘dowry’), and is common in Palmer proper names (Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v.). The interchange of ל and ד is probably dialectic (compare dacrima = lacrima), and hardly justifies Cheyne’s view that the name in the writer’s mind was זַבְדּוֹן] (l.c. 380).—יזבלני] Another ἅπαξ λεγόμενον apparently connected with זְבֻל, poetical for ‘abode’: Versions ‘dwell with’ (as English Version). This gives a good enough sense here, and is perhaps supported by 49¹³ (see on the verse); but זְבֻלוּן remains without any natural explanation. See Hogg, in Encyclopædia Biblica, 5385 ff. Meyer (538) derives it from the personal name זְבֻל (Judges 9²⁸).—21 end] LXX + ותעמד מלדת (as 29³⁵).—24. יוֹסֵף] Probably a contraction of יוסף־אל, though the Yšp’r of the list of Thothmes III. (Number 78) is less confidently identified with Joseph than the companion Y‛ḳb’r with Jacob (compare page 360 above; Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 262; Spiegelberg, Randglossen, 13 f.; Müller, Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1907, i. 23, and Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1909, 31). But Yašupili has been found in contract tablets of the Ḥammurabi period along with Yaḳub-ili (Hommel The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 96 [from Sayce]).

XXX. 25‒43. Jacob enriched at Laban’s Expense (Jehovist).

Jacob, having accomplished his 14 years of service for his wives, is now in a position to dictate terms to Laban, who, in his eagerness to keep him, invites him to name the price for which he will remain with him. It is interesting to contrast the relative attitudes of the two men with their bearing in 29^{15 ff.} Jacob here shows a decision of purpose which causes Laban to adopt an obsequious tone very unlike his former easy assurance. He is overjoyed to find his nephew’s demands so reasonable; and correspondingly mortified (31²) when he discovers how completely he has been deceived by Jacob’s apparent moderation.—The story, as Gunkel reminds us, was originally told to shepherds, who would follow with keen interest the various tricks of their craft which Jacob so successfully applies (and of which he was probably regarded as the inventor). To more refined readers these details were irksome; hence the abridged and somewhat unintelligible form in which the narrative stands.

Sources.—In the earlier verses (^25‒31) several duplicates show the composition of Yahwist and Elohist: ^{25 ∥ 26a}; ^{26b ∥ 29a}; ^{28 ∥ 31a}; ויאמר in ²⁷ and ²⁸; אתה ידעת, ^26b and ^29a. Here ^{25. 27. 29‒31} are from Yahwist (יהוה, ^{27. 30}; מָצָא חֵן, ²⁷; בִּגְלַל ²⁷), and ^{26. 28} from Elohist,—each narrative being nearly complete (compare Dillmann, Gunkel, Procksch).—In ^32‒36 it is quite possible, in spite of the scepticism of Dillmann and others, to distinguish two conceptions of Jacob’s reward (Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 40 ff.). (a) In the first, Jacob is that very day to take out from Laban’s flock all abnormally coloured animals: that is to be his hire (³²). On the morrow (or in time to come), Laban may inspect Jacob’s flock: if he find in it any normally coloured animals, Jacob is at once convicted of fraud ³³. This account belongs to Elohist (compare שְׂכָרִי, ³², with ²⁸), though it is doubtful if to the same stratum of Elohist as 31^7‒12. (b) In the other, Laban himself separates the flocks, leaving the normally coloured sheep and goats in Jacob’s keeping, and removing the others to a distance of three days’ journey, under the charge of his sons (^32aβ [from הָסֵר ^{35 f.}). Thus Jacob receives for the present nothing at all (³¹ Yahwist). The narrative must have gone on to explain that his hire was to consist of any variegated animals appearing in the normally coloured flock now left in his charge (^36b); Laban’s precautions aim at securing that these shall be few or none. Hence we obtain for Yahwist ^{32aβ. 35. 36}, and for Elohist ^{32aαδb. 33. 34}.—^37‒45 is the natural continuation of Yahwist’s account, but with numerous insertions, which may be either from variants or glosses.—The text here is very confused, and LXX has many variations.

25‒31. Jacob proposes to provide for his own house.—A preliminary parley, in which both parties feel their way to an understanding.—26 (Elohist). thou knowest with what kind of service, etc.] Elohist always lays stress on Jacob’s rectitude (compare ³³).—27 (Yahwist). If I have found favour, etc.] followed by aposiopesis, as 18³ 23¹³.—Laban continues: I have taken omens (נִחַשְׁתִּי; compare 44^{5. 15}, 1 Kings 20³³) and (found that) Yahwe has blessed me, etc.]—an abject plea for Jacob’s remaining with him.—28 (Elohist). Laban surrenders at once (the answer is in verse ³²), whereas—29,30 in Yahwist, Jacob presses for a discharge: his service has been of immense value to Laban, but he has a family to consider.—31. anything at all] See introductory note above.—this thing] which I am about to mention.—resume herding thy flock] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 g.

26. ואת־ילדי] Not necessarily a gloss; the children might fairly be considered included in Jacob’s wages.—27. On נִחַשׁ, verb 44⁵.—בגללך] LXX τῇ σῇ εἰσόδῳ, Armenian in pede tuo = לרגלך (³⁰).—28. LXX, Vulgate omit ויאמר, smoothing over the transition from Yahwist to Elohist.—נקבה] ‘designate’ (literally ‘prick [off]’): compare the use of Niphal in Numbers 1¹⁷, 1 Chronicles 16⁴¹ etc.—29. את אשר] ‘the manner in which’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 c); but Peshiṭtå reads as in verse ²⁶.—30. לרגלי] contrasted with לפני above. Prosperity has followed Jacob ‘wherever he went’ (compare Isaiah 41², Job 18¹¹ etc.). It is unnecessary to emend בִּגְלָלִי (Peshiṭtå, Targum^Onkelos, Cheyne).—31. אשמר] (LXX, Peshiṭtå prefix וְ) must be deleted on account of its awkward position.

32‒36. The new contract.—The point in both narratives is that parti-coloured animals form a very small proportion of a flock, the Syrian sheep being nearly all white (Canticles 4² 6⁶, Daniel 7⁹) and the goats black or brown (Canticles 4^1b). In Elohist, Jacob simply asks this small share as his payment.—32. and it shall be my hire] The rendering ‘and of this sort shall be my hire’ (in future), is merely a violent attempt to obliterate the difference between Yahwist and Elohist.—33. my righteousness shall testify against me] i.e., the proposal is so transparently fair that Jacob will be as it were automatically convicted of theft if he violates the compact. צְדָקָה, ‘unimpeachable conduct,’ here means ‘fair dealing,’ ‘honesty.’—in time to come] whenever Laban chooses to make an investigation.—35, 36 (Yahwist). And he (Laban, see ^32aβ) removed that day, etc.] Laban’s motive in removing the variegated animals to a distance of three days’ journey is obvious; he wishes to reduce to a minimum the chance that any such animals should henceforth be born amongst those now entrusted to Jacob.—white] Hebrew lābān, perhaps a play on Laban’s name.

32. אעבר, הסר] To get rid of the change of person (and the division of sources) many construe the latter as infinitive absolute (‘removing’); but the only natural rendering is imperative (compare ³⁵). LXX has imperative both times.—כל־שה—עזים] LXX πᾶν πρόβατον φαιὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀρνάσιν καὶ πᾶν διάραντον λελυκὸν καὶ λευκὸν ἐν ταῖς αἰξίν, a smoother and therefore less original text. The Hebrew seems overloaded; Gunkel strikes out וְכָל־שֶׂה־חוּם בַּֽכְּשָׂבִים, and the corresponding clauses in ^{33. 35}.—נָקֹד וְטָלוּא] ‘speckled and spotted,’ ‘parti-coloured.’ The words are practically synonymous, both being distinct from עָקֹד (^{35. 39. 40} 31^{8. 10. 12}†), which means ‘striped.’ If there be a difference, נ׳ (^{35. 39} 31^{8. 10. 12}†) suggests smaller spots than ט׳ (compare Ezekiel 16¹⁶, Joshua 9⁵, the only places where the √ occurs outside this passage).—חוּם] only in this chapter: = ‘black’ or ‘dark-brown.’—33. ענה ב] ‘testify against’ (see 1 Samuel 12³, 2 Samuel 1¹⁶, Isaiah 3⁹). An easier sense would be obtained if we could translate ‘witness for,’ but there seem to be no examples of that usage. Driver’s interpretation: ‘there will be nothing whatever to allege against my honesty,’ seems, on the other hand, too subtle.—ביום מחר] ‘in time to come’ (Exodus 13¹⁴, Deuteronomy 6²⁰). If we could insist on the literal rendering ‘on the morrow,’ the proof of divergence between Yahwist and Elohist would be strengthened, but the sense is less suitable.—כי—לפניך] LXX ὅτι ἐστὶν ὁ μισθός μου ἐνώπιόν σου.—36. בינו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX בינם.—The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch follows ³⁶ with a long addition based on 31^11‒13.

37‒43. Jacob’s Stratagem.—The main account is from Yahwist, to whose narrative the artifice is essential, but there are many interpolations.—37‒39. The first step is to work on the imagination of the females by rods of poplar, etc., peeled in such a way as to show patches of white, and placed in the drinking troughs.—38, 39. Removing glosses, Yahwist’s account reads: And he placed the rods which he had peeled in the runnels ... in front of the flock, and they bred when they came to drink.... And the flock brought forth streaked, speckled, and spotted (young).

The physiological law involved is said to be well established (Driver), and was acted on by ancient cattle breeders (see the list of authorities in Bochart, Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ ii. chapter 49; and compare Jerome Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim ad loc.). The full representation seems to be that the ewes saw the reflexion of the rams in the water, blended with the image of the parti-coloured rods, and were deceived into thinking they were coupled with parti-coloured males (Jerome, Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 41).

37. לבנה (Hosea 4¹³†)] the ‘white’ tree; according to some, populus alba (Dillmann al.), but very probably styrax officinalis (Arabic lubnaʸ, so called from its exuding a milk-like gum), (Gesenius, Delitzsch, Driver, al.).—לוּז†] = Aramaic לוּזָא, ‘almond tree.’—עַרְמוֹן (Ezekiel 31⁸†)] platanus orientalis (Assyrian irmeânu).—Instead of the last three words LXX has ἐφαίνετο δὲ ἐπὶ ταῖς ῥάβδοις τὸ λευκόν, ὃ ἐλέπισεν ποικίλον,—a very sensible comment, but hardly original. The whole clause ‘(with) a laying bare (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 r) of the white on the rods,’ is superfluous, and certainly looks like a variant.—בהן] plural; מקל being collective.—38 ff. The text of Yahwist, as sifted by Wellhausen, commends itself by its lucidity and continuity. It is impossible to tell whether the interpolated words are variants from another source (Elohist?) or explanatory glosses.—38. רַהַט (verse ⁴¹, Exodus 2¹⁶†)] either ‘trough,’ from Arabic rahaṭa, ‘be collected,’ or ‘runnel,’ from Aramaic רהט = רוּץ (see Nöldeke Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xii. 187).—שִׁקֲתוֹת] construction plural of שֹׁקֶת, 24²⁰†.—The words בשקתות—לשתות divorce לנכח הצאן from its connexion, and must be omitted from the text of Yahwist. LXX appears to have changed הצאן ויחמנה to המקלֹות, rendering thus (^38b) ἵνα ὡς ἂν ἔλθωσιν τὰ πρόβατα πιεῖν, ἐνώπιον τῶν ῥάβδων [καὶ] ἐλθόντων αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ πιεῖν, ἐνκισσήσωσιν (³⁹) τὰ πρόβατα—וַיֵּחַמְנָה] On the unusual preference of 3rd person feminine plural, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 k.—39a is a doublet to the last three words of ³⁸.—ויחמו] ib. § 69 f; The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויחמנה.

40. And (these) lambs Jacob set apart ... and made separate flocks for himself and did not add them to Laban’s stock (Wellhausen).—41, 42. A further refinement: Jacob employed his device only in the case of the sturdy animals, letting the weakly ones gender freely. The difference corresponds to a difference of breeding-time (v.i.). The consequence is that Jacob’s stock is hardy and Laban’s delicate.

40. ‘He set the faces of the flock towards a (sic) streaked and every dark one in Laban’s flock,’ is an imperfect text, and an impossible statement in Yahwist, where Laban’s cattle are three days distant. LXX vainly tries to make sense by omitting לָבָן, and rendering פְּנֵי = ἐναντίον, and אֶל־עָקֹד = κριὸν (אַיִל!) διάλευκον.—41. בּכל־] LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targum^Onkelos, supply עֵת.—42. הקשרים, העטפים] LXX ἐπίσημα, ἄσημα; but Symmachus (paraphrasing) πρώϊμα ὄψιμα, and similarly Aquila, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targum^Onkelos. It is the fact that the stronger sheep conceived in summer and yeaned in winter, while the weaker conceived in autumn and yeaned in the spring: Pliny, Naturalis Historia, viii. 187 (‘postea concepti invalidi’).

XXXI. 1‒XXXII. 1. Jacob’s Flight from Laban: their friendly Parting (Yahwist, Elohist).

Jacob perceives from the altered demeanour of Laban and his sons that he has outstayed his welcome (^{1. 2}); and, after consultation with his wives, resolves on a secret flight (^3‒21). Laban pursues, and overtakes him at Mt. Gilead (^22‒25), where, after a fierce altercation (^26‒43), they enter into a treaty of peace (from which Gilead receives its name), and separate with many demonstrations of goodwill (31⁴⁴‒32¹).

Sources.—^1‒16 is an almost homogeneous (though perhaps not continuous) excerpt from Elohist: אלהים, ^{7. 9. 11. 16}; מַשְׂכֹּרָת, ⁷ (compare ⁴¹ 29¹⁵); מֹנִים, ⁷ (⁴¹); מַצֵבָה ¹³; the revelation by dream, ^{10 f.}; the summons and answer, ¹¹ (22^{1. 7. 11}); and the explanation of Jacob’s wealth ^{7 ff.}; compare also the reference to 28^20‒22. ¹ and ³ are from a Yahwist parallel: יהוה, ³; מוֹלַדְתְּךָ, ³; the ‘sons’ of Laban, ¹ (compare 30³⁵).—In ^17‒54 Elohist still preponderates, though Yahwist is more largely represented than some critics (Dillmann, Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Driver, al.) allow. The detailed analysis is here very intricate, and will be best dealt with under the several sections.—¹⁸ (except the first four words) is the only extract from Priestly-Code.

1‒16. Preparations for flight.—1, 3 (Yahwist). The jealousy of Laban’s sons corresponds to the dark looks of Laban himself in Elohist (verse ²); the divine communication is a feature of both narratives (verse ¹³).—4‒13. Jacob vindicates his conduct towards Laban, and sets forth the reasons for his projected flight. The motive of the speech is not purely literary, affording the writer an opportunity to express his belief in Jacob’s righteousness (Gunkel); it is first of all an appeal to the wives to accompany him: compare the question to Rebekah in 24⁵⁸.—6. Ye yourselves know, etc.] Compare 30^{26. 29}. But to repeat the protestation after the work of the last six years implies great hardihood on Jacob’s part; and rather suggests that the passage belongs to a stratum of Elohist which said nothing about his tricks with the flock.—7. changed my wages ten times] Perhaps a round number, not to be taken literally.—8. A sample of Laban’s tergiversations, and their frustration by God’s providence.—9. And so God has taken away, etc.] The hand of God has been so manifest that Laban’s displeasure is altogether unreasonable.—10‒12. Jacob receives through a dream the explanation of the singular good fortune that has attended him.

In the text verses ^10‒12 form part of the same revelation as that in which Jacob is commanded to depart (¹³). But, as Wellhausen (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 39) asks, “How could two such dissimilar revelations be coupled together in this way?” Verse ¹⁰ recalls an incident of the past, while ¹³ is in the sphere of the present: moreover, ‘I am the God of Bethel’ must surely open the communication. Wellhausen solves the difficulty by removing ¹⁰ and ¹² (assigning them to an unknown source), and leaving ¹¹ as the introduction to ¹³: similarly Dillmann, Holzinger, Oxford Hexateuch, al. Gunkel supposes parts of Jacob’s speech to have been omitted between ⁹ and ¹⁰ and between ¹² and ¹³.—It is scarcely possible to recover the original sense of the fragment. If the dream had preceded the negotiations with Laban, it might have been a hint to Jacob of the kind of animals he was to ask as his hire (Strack, Gunkel); but that is excluded by ^12b; and, besides, in verse ⁸ it is Laban who fixes the terms of the contract. We can only understand it vaguely as an assurance to Jacob that against all natural expectations the transaction will be overruled to his advantage.

2. איננו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אינם (so verse ⁵).—6. אתנה] only here and thrice in Ezekiel (compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 32 i).—7. והחלף] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויחלף.—עשרת מנִים] LXX (‘nescio qua opinione ducti’ [Jerome]) τῶν δέκα ἀμνῶν (so ⁴¹—probably a transliteration, afterwards made into a Greek word). מֹנִים (⁴¹†) from √ מנה, ‘count,’ for the usual פְּעָמִים.—אלהים] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch יהוה (so ^{9. 16a}).—9. את־] LXX אָת־כָּל־.—אביכם] for אביכן (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 o.

13. I am the God of Bethel] links this theophany with that of 28^{10 ff.}, and is (in Elohist) the first assurance given to Jacob that his vow (28^20‒22) had been accepted.—14‒16. Jacob’s appeal has been addressed to willing ears: his wives are already alienated from their father, and eagerly espouse their husband’s cause.—14b. Compare 2 Samuel 20¹, 1 Kings 12¹⁶.—15. has sold us] like slaves.—consumed our money] i.e., the price paid for us (compare Exodus 21³⁵). The complaint implies that it was considered a mark of meanness for a man to keep the mōhar for himself instead of giving it to his daughters. A similar change in the destination of the mahr appears in Arabia before Islam (Wellhausen Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1893, 434 f.).—16. is ours and our children’s] Elohist never mentions sons of Laban; and apparently looks on Leah and Rachel as the sole heiresses.

13. האל ביתאל] The article with construct violates a well known rule of syntax (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 f); and it is doubtful if the anomaly be rightly explained by supposing the ellipsis of אֵל or אֱלֹהֵי. The original text may have been הָאֵל [הַנִּרְאָה אֵלֶיךָ בִּמְקוֹם] בֵּיתְאֵל; (so [but without ביתאל] LXX, adopted by Ball); or האל[—ב]ביתאל (Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan}, Kittel).—ארץ מולדתך] see on 11²⁸. It is the only occurrence of מ׳ in Elohist.—LXX adds καὶ ἔσομαι μετὰ σοῦ.—15. נכריות] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate כְּנָ׳.—גם אכול] see on 27³³.—16. עשר] LXX + καὶ τὴν δόξαν.

17‒25. The flight and pursuit.—18. and drove away all his cattle] Hence the slowness of his march as compared with Laban’s (33^13b).—The rest of the verse is from Priestly-Code (compare 12⁵ 36⁶ 46⁶).—to Isaac his father] 35²⁷.—19. Now Laban had gone to shear his flock] Sheep-shearing was the occasion of an important festival in ancient Israel (38^{12 ff.}, 1 Samuel 25^{2 ff.}, 2 Samuel 13²³).—With Rachel’s theft of the tĕrāphîm (the household idol: v.i.), compare Virgil Aeneid ii. 293 f., iii. 148 f.—20. stole the heart] (²⁶, 2 Samuel 15⁶†) ‘deceived’; the heart being the seat of intelligence (Hosea 4¹¹): compare ἔκλεψε νόον, Iliad xiv. 217.—the Aramæan (only here and ²⁴)] The emphasising of Laban’s nationality at this point is hard to explain. That it is the correction (by Elohist²) of an older version (Elohist¹), in which Laban was not an Aramæan (Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 236), is not probable. Budde (Die biblische Urgeschichte 422¹) regards it as a gloss, inserted with a view to verse ⁴⁷—21. crossed the River (Yahwist)] the Euphrates (Exodus 23³¹, Joshua 24² etc.).—23. his brethren] his fellow-clansmen. In the sequel Jacob also is surrounded by his clansmen (^{37. 46. 54}),—a proof that tribal relations are clothed in the guise of individual biography.—seven days’ journey] The distance of Gilead from Ḥarran (circa 350 miles as the crow flies) is much too great to be traversed in that time.

If the verse be from Yahwist (Gunkel, Procksch), we must assume (what is no doubt conceivable) that the writer’s geographical knowledge was defective. But it is a strong reason for assigning the verse to Elohist, that in that source nothing is said of Ḥarran or the Euphrates, and Laban’s home is placed somewhere in the eastern desert (see 29¹).

17‒25. A complete analysis of the verses cannot be effected. The hand of Elohist is recognised in ^19b (תְּרָפִים, compare ³⁰ 35^{2 ff.}), ²⁰, (? הָֽאֲרַמִּי, as ²⁴), and especially ²⁴ (אלהים, חֲלֹם; compare ^{29. 42}). Yahwist betrays its presence chiefly by doublets: ^{21aβ ∥ 17} (וַיָּקָם), and ^{25a ∥ 23b} (וַיַּשֵּׂג, וַיַּדְבֵּק). The assignment of ^21aβ to Yahwist is warranted by the mention of the Euphrates: hence ¹⁷ is Elohist. Further than this we cannot safely go. Gunkel’s division (^{19a. 21‒23. 25b} = Yahwist; ^{17. 18aα. 19b. 20. 24. 25a} = Elohist) is open to the objection that it ignores the discrepancy between the seven days of ^23a and the crossing of the Euphrates in ^21a (see on ²³ above); but is otherwise attractive. Meyer (235 ff.) gets rid of the geographical difficulty by distinguishing two strata in Elohist, of which the later had been accommodated to the representation of Yahwist.—¹⁸ (from וְאֶת־כָּל־רְכֻשׁוֹ) is obviously Priestly-Code.—17. sons and wives] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX ‘wives and sons.’—18. LXX omits the clause אֲשֶׁר—קִנְיָנוֹ (so Peshiṭtå); and adds after אֲרָ֑ם, καὶ πάντα τὰ αὐτοῦ.—19. תְּרָפִים] A plural of eminence, like אֱלֹהִים, etc.; hence it is doubtful whether one image or several is here referred to. The teraphim was a god (³⁰), its form and size were those of a man (1 Samuel 19^{13. 16}), it was used in private houses as well as in temples (Judges 17⁵ 18^{14 ff.}, Hosea 3⁴), and was an implement of divination (Ezekiel 21²⁶, Zechariah 10²). The indications point to its being an emblem of ancestor-worship which survived in Israel as a private superstition, condemned by the enlightened conscience of the nation (35², 1 Samuel 15²³, 2 Kings 23²⁴). It seems implied by the present narrative that the cult was borrowed from the Aramæans, or perhaps rather that it had existed before the separation of Hebrews and Aramæans. (See Moore, Judges 379 ff.)—20. על־בלי] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, is difficult. על for על אשר is rare and poetic (Psalms 119¹³⁶: Brown-Driver-Briggs, 758 a); בלי (poetic for לא) is also rare with finite verb (ib. 115 b). Since the following clause is a specification of the preceding, ‘wegen Mangels davon dass’ (Dillmann) is not a suitable rendering. We should expect לְבִלְתִּי הַגִּיד, ‘in not telling him that,’ etc.: The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch has עד בלתי.—22. ללבן] LXX + τῷ Σύρῳ.