chapter 12: note the tendency to soften the harsher features of the
incident (⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹⁶), and to minimise the extent of Abraham’s departure from strict veracity.
_Source._――The narrative is the first continuous excerpt from Elohist; and contains several stylistic and other peculiarities of that document: especially [הָ]אֱלֹהִים, ³ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁷ (¹⁸ יהוה is a gloss); אָמָה (Yahwist שִׁפְחָה), ¹⁷; לֵבָב (Yahwist לב), ⁵; see also the notes on נִקָּיוֹן, ⁵; אָמַר אָל־, ²ᐧ ¹³; נָתַן לְ, ⁶; אָמְנָה, ¹² (compare Dillmann 279; Holzinger 159; Gunkel 193).――The appearing of God in a dream is characteristic of Elohist; and the conception of Abraham as a prophet (⁷) is at least foreign to the original Yahwist (but see on 15¹). Another circumstance proving the use of a source distinct from Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ or Priestly-Code is that Sarah is here conceived as a young woman capable of inspiring passion in the king (contrast 18¹² 17¹⁷). Lastly, it is to be observed that chapter 20 is the beginning of a section (20‒22) mainly Elohistic, representing a cycle of tradition belonging to the Negeb and, in particular, to Beersheba.
=1, 2. Introductory notice.=――The method of the narrator, Gunkel points out, is to let the story unfold itself in the colloquies which follow, verses ¹ ᶠᐧ containing just enough to make these intelligible.――=1.= _the land of the Negeb_] see on 12⁹.――_between Ḳādēsh_ (14⁷) _and Shûr_ (16⁷) would be in the extreme South of the Negeb, if not beyond its natural limits. The words וַיָּגָר בִּגְרָר (note the paronomasia) are not a nearer specification of the previous clause, but introduce a new fact,――a further stage of the patriarch’s wanderings. There is therefore no reason to suppose that _Gĕrār_ lay as far South as Ḳadesh (_v.i._).――=2.= The bareness of the narration is remarkable, and was felt by the Greek translators to be wanting in lucidity (_v.i._).――_Abimelech, king of Gĕrār_] אֲבִימֶלֶךְ = ‘_Milk_ is [my] father,’ is a genuine Canaanite name, compounded with the name of the god _Milk_ (see Baethgen _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 37 ff.). It occurs as the name of the governor of Tyre (_Abi-milki_) in the Tel-Amarna Tablets (149‒156). There is no trace here of the anachronism which makes him a Philistine prince (chapter 26); Gerar is an independent Canaanite kingdom.――_took Sarah_] _sc._ as wife; the same ellipsis as 19¹⁴.
* * * * *
=1.= וַיִּסַּע ] see 11².――אַרְצָה הַנֶּגֶב] אֶרֶץ הַנּ׳ only 24⁶², Joshua 15¹⁹, Judges 1¹⁵ (Yahwist), Numbers 13²⁹ (Elohist?).――גְּרָר] (10¹⁹ 26¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹⁷ [נַחַל גְּרָר], ²⁰ᐧ ²⁶, 2 Chronicles 14¹² ᶠᐧ†) LXX Γεραρα, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); commonly identified, on the authority of _Onomastica Sacra_, 240²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ (ἀπέχουσα Ἐλευθεροπόλεως σημείοις κε πρὸς νότον), with the modern _Umm Ǧerār_ (‘place of water-pots’), 6 miles South-south-east of Gaza (so Rowlands, _Holy City_, i. 464; Robinson [who did not find the name], _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 43 f. [compare i. 189], Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). This suits 26¹ (according to which it was in Philistine territory), 10¹⁹ and 2 Chronicles 14¹³; but hardly 26¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ, and it is certainly inconsistent with the notice בֵּין קָדֵשׁ וּבֵין שׁוּר. There happens to be a _Wādī Ǧerūr_, approximately 13 miles South-west of Ḳadesh, which exactly agrees with this description; and so Trumbull (_Kadesh-Barnea_ 62 f., 255) and others have decided that this must be the biblical Gerar, while others think there may have been two places of the name (Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, ii. 1705 f.). The question really turns on 26¹⁷ᐧ ²¹ ᶠᐧ: so far as the present reference is concerned, we have seen that the argument rests on a misconception; and it is not even necessary to assume (with Kautzsch-Socin) that ¹ᵃ is a redactional clause, or (with Holzinger, Gunkel) that part of Elohist’s narrative has been suppressed between ¹ᵃ and ¹ᵇ. It is true that מִשָּׁם has no antecedent in Elohist, and it is, of course, conceivable that it was written by Redactorᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ to connect the following with a previous section of Elohist (Gunkel), or by Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ to mark the transition from Hebron (18¹) to the Negeb. A redactor, however, would not have been likely to insert the notice ‘between Ḳadesh and Shur’ unless he had meant it as a definition of the site of Gerar.――=2.= אָמַר אֶל־] = ‘said regarding’ is rare: 2 Kings 19³², Jeremiah 22¹⁸ 27¹⁹; compare א׳ לְ, verse ¹³, Judges 9⁵⁴, Psalms 3³ 71¹⁰.――After Athnach, LXX inserts ἐφοβήθη γὰρ εἰπεῖν ὅτι Γυνή μού ἐστιν, μή ποτε ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες τῆς πόλεως δι’ αὐτήν (from 26⁷ᵇ).
* * * * *
=3‒7. Abimelech’s dream.=――This mode of revelation is peculiar to Elohist (21¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ 22¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 28¹² 31¹¹ᐧ ²⁴ 37⁵ 46², Numbers 12⁶ 22⁹ᐧ ²⁰), and probably indicates a more spiritual idea of God than the theophanies of Yahwist. It must be remembered, however, that according to primitive ideas the ‘coming’ of God (so 31²⁴, Numbers 22²⁰) would be as real an event in a dream as in waking experience.――=4a.= _had not drawn near her_] Not an explanation of Abimelech’s good conscience (which depended solely on the purity of his motives), but of Yahwe’s words in ⁶ᵇ. _Why_ he had not come near her, we gather fully from ¹⁷.――=4b, 5.= Abimelech protests his innocence.――_innocent folk_]――‘such as I am’ (_v.i._).――=5.= בְּתָם־לְבָבִי] ‘unsuspectingly’; compare 2 Samuel 15¹¹, 1 Kings 22³⁴; in the wider sense of moral integrity the phrase occurs 1 Kings 9⁴, Psalms 78⁷² 101².――=6.= _have kept thee back from sinning_ (_i.e._ inexpiably) _against me_] The sin is not mere infringement of the rights of a privileged person (Dillmann), but the moral offence of violating the marriage bond.――_suffered thee not_] by sickness (verse ¹⁷).――=7.= The situation is altered by this disclosure of the facts to Abimelech: if he _now_ retains Sarah, he will be on every ground deserving of punishment.――_he is a prophet_] in a secondary sense, as a ‘man of God,’ whose person and property are inviolable: compare Psalms 105¹⁵.――On _intercession_ as a function of the prophet, Deuteronomy 9²⁰, 1 Samuel 7⁵ 12¹⁹ᐧ ²³, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ etc.; but compare Job 42⁸.――_that thou mayest live_] or ‘recover.’
The section (³⁻⁷) exhibits a vacillation which is characteristic of the conception of sin in antique religion. Sin is not wholly an affair of the conscience and inward motive, but an external fact――a violation of the objective moral order, which works out its consequences with the indifference of a law of nature to the mental condition of the transgressor (compare the matricide of Orestes, etc.; and see Smend, _Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte_², 108 f.). At the same time God Himself recognises the relative validity of Abimelech’s plea of ignorance (⁶). It is the first faint protest of the moral sense against the hereditary mechanical notion of guilt. But it is a long way from Abimelech’s faltering protestation of innocence to Job’s unflinching assertion of the right of the individual conscience against the decree of an unjust fate.
* * * * *
=3.= על] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ על אנדת: compare 21¹¹, Exodus 18⁸, Numbers 12¹ 13²⁴ (Elohist), Genesis 21²⁵ 26³² (Yahwist), Joshua 14⁶ (Redactor), Judges 6⁷.――בעלת בעל] a married woman, Deuteronomy 22²².――=4.= To גּוֹי in the indefinite sense of ‘people’ (_Leute_) we may compare Psalms 43¹, Daniel 11²³; but the sense is doubtful, and the idea may be that the whole nation is involved in the punishment of the king (Strack). Eerdmans (_Die Komposition der Genesis_, 41) offers the incredible suggestion that גוי here has its late Jewish sense of an individual ‘heathen.’ Geiger, Graetz, al. regard the word as a gloss or a corrupt dittography. LXX has ἔθνος ἀγνοοῦν καὶ δίκαιον.――=5.= נִקָּיוֹן] only here in Hexateuch; Elohist is addicted to rare expressions. For נ׳ כַּפַּי, compare Psalms 26⁶ 73¹³.――=6.= מֵחֲטוֹּ] for מֵחֲטֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _qq_.――נָתַן לְ׳] = ‘permit,’ 31⁷, Numbers 20²¹ 21²³ 22¹³ (Elohist), Exodus 12²³ (Yahwist), 3¹⁹ (Redactor), Deuteronomy 18¹⁴, Joshua 10¹⁹ (Deuteronomic): see _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. 192.
* * * * *
=8‒13. Abimelech and Abraham.=――=9.= _a great sin_] _i.e._, a state of things which, though unwittingly brought about, involves heavy judgement from God (see on ³⁻⁷ above).――_deeds that are not done_] are not sanctioned by the conventional code of morals: compare 34⁷, 2 Samuel 13¹² etc.――To this rebuke Abraham (as in 12¹⁸ ᶠᐧ) has no reply, and Abimelech proceeds in――=10= to inquire into his motive for so acting.――מָה רָאִיתָ ‘_What possessed thee?_’ (_v.i._).――=11‒13.= Abraham’s self-exculpation, which is at the same time the writer’s apology for his conduct, consists of three excuses: (1) he was actuated by fear for his life; (2) he had not been guilty of direct falsehood, but only of mental reservation; (3) the deceit was not practised for the first time on Abimelech, but was a preconcerted scheme which (it is perhaps implied) had worked well enough in other places. Whether 2 and 3 had any foundation in the Elohistic tradition, or were invented by the narrator _ad hoc_ (Gunkel), we cannot now determine.――=11.= _There is no piety_ (יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים) _in this place_] Religion was the only sanction of international morality, the _gêr_ having no civil rights; compare 42¹⁸: see Bertholet, _Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden_, 15. Compare 12¹².――=12.= _Besides, she really is my sister_] Marriage with a half-sister on the father’s side was frequent among the Semites (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 191 f.), and was allowed in ancient Israel (2 Samuel 13¹³), though prohibited by later legislation (Deuteronomy 27²², Leviticus 18⁹ᐧ ¹¹ 20¹⁷).――=13.= _When God caused me to stray_] The expression is peculiar, as if God had driven him forth an aimless wanderer (Dillmann). It proves that in Elohist, as in Yahwist and Priestly-Code, Abraham was an immigrant in Canaan.
* * * * *
=8.= האנשים] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate prefix כל.――=9.= מה עשית לנו] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) = מה עשתי לך, rashly adopted by Ball, Holzinger, Kittel――חטאתי] LXX ἡμάρτομεν.――=10.= מָה רָאִיתָ LXX τί ἐνιδών; so Vulgate, Ball conjecture יָרֵאתָ; Gunkel רָעִיתָ. The translation given above is taken from Bacher, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xix. 345 ff., who cites many examples from New Hebrew of the idiom (literally ‘What hast thou experienced?’).――=11.= כִּי] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ כי יראתי כי.――רַק] = ‘[I should act otherwise] _only_,’ etc.: a purely asseverative force (Brown-Driver-Briggs) seems to me insufficiently established by Deuteronomy 4⁶, 1 Kings 21²⁵, 2 Chronicles 28¹⁰, Psalms 32⁶.――=12.= אָמְנָה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ [?ה]אמנם, as 18¹³, Numbers 22³⁷; but compare Joshua 7²⁰. These are all the occurrences in Hexateuch.――=13.= הִתְעוּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ התעה. The construct of אֱלֹהִים (_plural eminent_) with plural predicate is exceptional, though not uncommon (31⁵³ 35⁷, Joshua 24¹⁹), and does not appear to be regulated in our present text by any principle. A tendency to substitute singular for plural is shown by 1 Chronicles 17²¹ compared with 2 Samuel 7²³; and it is probable that the change has taken place in many cases where we have no means of tracing it: see Strack² 77; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 _i_. A kindred and equally inexplicable anomaly is the sporadic use of the article with this word (so verses ⁶ᐧ ¹⁷). Both phenomena are probably survivals from a polytheistic form of the legend.――אבי] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + ומארץ מילדתי (as 12¹).――כל־המקום] determined by following relative clause; so Exodus 20²⁴, Deuteronomy 11²⁴.
* * * * *
=14‒18. Abimelech makes reparation to Abraham.=――=14.= The present to Abraham in 12¹⁶ was of the nature of _mōhar_ or purchase-price of a wife; here it is a compensation for injury unwittingly inflicted. The restoration of Sarah is, of course, common to both accounts.――=15.= The invitation to dwell in the land is a contrast to the honourable but peremptory dismissal of 12¹⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=16.= _see, I give ... to thy brother_] For injury done to a woman compensation was due to her relatives if unmarried, to her husband if married or betrothed (Exodus 22¹⁵ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 22²³ ᶠᶠᐧ): Abimelech, with a touch of sarcasm, puts Sarah in the former category.――_1000_ (shekels) _of silver_] not the money value of the gifts in verse ¹⁴ (Strack), but a special present as a solatium on behalf of Sarah.――_a covering of the eyes_] seemingly a forensic expression for the prestation by which an offence ceases to be seen, _i.e._, is condoned. The figure is applied in various ways in Old Testament; compare Job 9²⁴, Genesis 32²¹, Exodus 23⁸, 1 Samuel 12³.――The clause וְאֶת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת is obscure, and the text hardly correct (_v.i._). The general sense is that Sarah’s honour is completely rehabilitated.――=17.= _God healed Abimelech_] The first explicit intimation (see ⁴ᐧ ⁶) that Abimelech had been smitten with a bodily malady, whose nature is indicated by the last word וַיֵּלֵֽדוּ.――=18.= A superfluous and inadequate explanation of ¹⁷, universally recognised as a gloss; note also יהוה.――עָצַר] see on 16².
* * * * *
=14.= צֹאן] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX prefix אלף כסף (from ¹⁶) wrongly.――ועבדים ושפחת] probably a gloss from 12¹⁶, this being the only instance of שִׁפְחָה in an Elohist context.――=16.= הִנֵּה הוּא――אִתָּךְ] LXX ταῦτα ἔσται σοι εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ προσώπου σου καὶ πάσαις ταῖς μετὰ σοῦ; Vulgate _hoc erit tibi in velamen oculorum ad omnes qui tecum sunt [et quocunque perrexeris]_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The difficulties of the verse commence here. The suggestion that הוּא refers to Abraham (Abraham Ibn Ezra) may be dismissed, and also the fantastic idea that Sarah is recommended to spend the money in the purchase of a veil, so that she may not again be mistaken for an unmarried woman (24⁶⁵)! The first question is, Whose eyes are to be covered?――Sarah’s own (לָךְ), or those of the people about her (לְכֹל וגו׳), or both (וּלְכֹל [with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX])? Dillmann adopts the second view, taking לָךְ as _dative complement_. To this Delitzsch forcibly replies that _dative complement_ before dative of reference is unnatural: hence he takes the first view (לָךְ, dative of reference, and לְכֹל = _bezugs aller_); _i.e._, “Her credit with her household, which had been injured by her forcible abduction, would be restored, and the malicious taunts or gossip of men and maids would be checked, when they saw how dearly the unintentional insult had been atoned for” (Ball). A better sense would be obtained if לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר could be taken as neuter: ‘all that has befallen thee’ (Tuch, Holzinger, al.). That is perhaps impossible with the present text; hence Gunkel’s emendation אָתָךְ (perfect √ אָתָה with accusative: Job 3²⁵) is not unattractive.――וְאָת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת] Untranslatable. LXX καὶ πάντα ἀλήθευσον; Vulgate _quocunque perrexeris: mementoque te deprehensam_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) (‘about all wherewith thou hast reproached me’); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ועל כל מא דאמרת איתוכחת. The change to וְנֹכַחַתּ (2nd singular perfect) is of no avail, the difficulty being mostly in וְאֶת־כֹּל, which cannot be continuation of אִתָּךְ (Tuch al.), or of לָךְ כְּסוּת עֵינַיִם, but must with Massoretic Text accents be taken with ונ׳. The rendering ‘and before all men thou shalt be righted’ (Dillmann, Delitzsch, Driver) is the best that can be made of the text. The easiest emendation is that of Gunkel: וְאַתְּ כֻּלּוֹ נֹכָֽחַת = ‘and thou in all this (affair) art justified,’ though the sense given to כלוh has no clear example in the Old Testament. The more drastic remedies of Ball do not commend themselves.――=18.= יהוה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אלהים.
* * * * *
XXI. 1‒21. _Birth of Isaac and Expulsion of Ishmael_ (Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly-Code).
The birth, circumcision, and naming of Isaac are briefly recorded in a section pieced together from the three sources (¹⁻⁷). Then follows a notice of the weaning festival (⁸), to which, by a finely descriptive touch (⁹), is linked the Elohistic version of the origin of the Ishmaelites (¹⁰⁻²¹). A comparison with the Yahwistic parallel (chapte 16) will be found below (page 324).
_Analysis._――²ᵇ⁻⁵ are from Priestly-Code (who by the way ignores altogether the expulsion of Ishmael [see on 25⁹]): observe the naming by the father and the exact correspondence with 16¹⁶ in ³, circumcision (⁴), the chronology (⁵); and the words אֱלֹהִים, ²ᵇᐧ ⁴; מוֹעֵד, ²ᵇ (compare 17²¹); מְאַת שָׁנָה, ⁵. ²ᵃ is to be assigned to Yahwist (בֵּן ל ִזְקֻנָיו, _v.i._); and also, for the same reason, ⁷. There remain the doublets ¹ᵃ ∥ ¹ᵇ and ⁶ᵃ ∥ ⁶ᵇ. Since the continuity of Priestly-Code is seldom sacrificed, ¹ᵇ is usually assigned to that source (יהוה, a scribal error), leaving ¹ᵃ to Yahwist (יהוה, פָּקַד). ⁶ᵇ goes with ⁷ (therefore Yahwist: _v.i._); and there remains for Elohist the solitary half-verse ⁶ᵃ (אלהים), which cannot belong to Priestly-Code because of the different etymology implied for יצחק. So Holzinger, Gunkel; Dillmann, Strack differ only in assigning the whole of ⁶ to Elohist.――The Yahwist fragments ¹ᵃᐧ ²ᵃᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁶ᵇ form a completely consecutive account of the birth of Isaac; which, however, is not the sequel to chapter 18 (see on ⁶ᵃ), and therefore belongs to Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ rather than Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ (Gunkel).――⁸⁻²¹ is wholly Elohistic: אלהים, ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰; אמה, ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹³; שים לגוי, ¹³ᐧ ¹⁸ (Yahwist עשה ל׳, 12²; Priestly-Code נתן ל׳, 17²⁰); and rare expressions like חמת, ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁹; מטחוי קשת, ¹⁶; רבה קשת, ²⁰. Further characteristics are the revelation of God by night (¹² ᶠᐧ), and in a voice from heaven (¹⁷).
* * * * *
=1‒7. The birth of Isaac.=――=2.= _a son to his old age_] so verse ⁷ 24³⁶ 37³ 44²⁰ (all Yahwist). All the sources emphasise the fact that Isaac was a late-born child; but this section contains nothing implying a miracle (contrast chapters 17, 18).――=3‒5.= The naming and circumcision of Isaac, in accordance with 17¹⁹ᐧ ¹² (Priestly-Code).――=6a.= _God has made laughter for me_] Both here and in ⁶ᵇ laughter is an expression of joy, whereas in 18¹² ᶠᶠᐧ 17¹⁷ it expresses incredulity.――=6b, 7= is the Yahwistic parallel. It has been pointed out by Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 224: so Kittel, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the transposition of ⁶ᵇ to the end of ⁷ greatly improves the sense, and brings out the metrical form of the original (in Hebrew 4 trimeters):
Who would have said to Abraham, “Sarah gives children suck”? For I have borne him a son in his old age! Every one that hears will laugh at me!
* * * * *
=1a.= פקד] never used by Priestly-Code _sensu bono_ (Strack).――=2.= אלהים] LXX יהוה――=3.= הנולד־] pointed as perfect with article (18²¹).――=6a.= צחק] The √ צחק never occurs outside of Pentateuch, except Judges 16²⁵ (where יִשְׂחַק should probably be read) and Ezekiel 23³² (but see Cornill and Toy), the Qal being used only in connexion with Isaac (17¹⁷ 18¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ 21⁶), while Piel has a stronger sense (19¹⁴ 21⁹ 26⁸ 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷, Exodus 32⁶). The other form שׂחק (not in Pentateuch) is mostly later than Jeremiah (except Judges 16²⁷, 1 Samuel 18⁷, 2 Samuel 2¹⁴ 6⁵ᐧ ²¹): in four cases (Amos 7⁹ᐧ ¹⁶, Jeremiah 33²⁶, Psalms 105⁹) even the name יִצְחָק appears as יִשְׂחָק. It will be seen that in Genesis we have no fewer than 4 (17¹⁷ 18¹² 21⁶ᵃᐧ ⁶ᵇ) or 5 (21⁹?) different suggestions of a connexion of יִצְחָק with √ צחק. Analogy would lead us to suppose that in reality it is a contraction of יִצְהָקֵאל, in all probability the name of an extinct tribe (compare יְרַחְמְאֵל , יִשְׁמָעֵאל, etc.).――=6b.= יִצֲחַק] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 10 _g_.――=7.= מִלֵּל] Aramaic; in Hebrew rare and poetic.――On the _modal_ use of perfect (‘would have said’), compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _p_; Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 19.――בנים] plural of species; compare Exodus 21²², 1 Samuel 17⁴³, Canticles 2⁹ (Dillmann). LXX has singular.――לזקניו LXX ἐν τῷ γήρει μου.
* * * * *
=8‒10. Sarah demands the ejection of Ishmael.=――=8.= The occasion was the customary family feast of the weaning of Isaac (Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 131). The age of weaning in modern Palestine is said to be 2 or 3 years (_ib._ 116); in ancient Israel also it must often have been late (1 Samuel 1²² ᶠᶠᐧ,, 2 Maccabees 7²⁷ ᶠᐧ).――=9.= _playing with Isaac her son_] The last words are essential to the sense, and must be restored with LXX, Vulgate (see _Jubilees_ xvii. 4, with Charles’s Note). It is the spectacle of the two young children playing together, innocent of social distinctions, that excites Sarah’s maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demand. The chronology of Priestly-Code, according to which Ishmael was some 17 years old, has for uncritical readers spoiled the effect; and given rise to the notion of Ishmael as a rude lad scoffing at the family joy, or to the still more fanciful explanations current in Jewish circles.¹――=10.= _with my son_] If this presupposes an equal right of inheritance as between the sons of the wife and the concubine (Gunkel), it also shows a certain opposition to that custom: compare the case of Jephthah, Judges 11¹ ᶠᶠᐧ (see Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 296).――_this slave girl_ (אָמָה)] In Elohist, Hagar is not Sarah’s maid, but simply a household slave, who has become her master’s concubine.
¹ St. Paul’s allusion to Ishmael as persecuting Isaac (Galatians 4²⁹, ἐδίωκεν) is based on this מְצַחֶק. For other Haggadic interpretations, see _Bereshith Rabba_ § liii; Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 503b, and _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 210. Unchastity (compare 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷), idolatry (Exodus 32⁶, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi), attempted murder (2 Samuel 2¹⁴, Proverbs 26¹⁹), etc., are among the crimes inferred from this unfortunate word.
* * * * *
=9.= מְצַחֶק LXX παίζοντα μετὰ Ἰσαακ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἑαυτῆς; so Vulgate (compare Zechariah 8⁵). The sense ‘mock’ (‘play with’ in a bad sense) would require a following בְּ, but it is doubtful if it actually occurs. 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ may be explained after 26⁸; in 19¹⁴ it means simply ‘play’ as opposed to serious behaviour (compare Proverbs 26¹⁹). See above on verse ⁶.――On the pausal ־ֶ , see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 52 _n_.
* * * * *
=11‒13. Abraham’s misgivings removed.=――=11.= _on account of his son_] whom he loves as his own flesh and blood; for the mother, as a slave, he has no particular affection.――=12.= It is revealed to him (by night: compare ¹⁴) that Sarah’s maternal instincts are in accord with the divine purpose.――_shall a seed be called to thee_] _i.e._, ‘in the line of Isaac shall thy name be perpetuated’ (Isaiah 41⁸, compare Romans 9⁷, Hebrews 11¹⁸). The same idea otherwise expressed in Priestly-Code (17¹⁹ᐧ ²¹).――=13.= Hagar’s child (still unnamed) is also Abraham’s seed, though his descendants are not to be known as such.――_a great nation_ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå)] compare 17²⁰.
* * * * *
=11= end] LXX + Ἰσμαηλ (wrongly).――=12.= יֵרַע] LXX + τὸ ῥῆμα.――=13.= _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read האמה הזאת לגוי גדול: גָּדוֹל also in Vulgate, Peshiṭtå.――לְגוֹי [ג׳]――שֵׁים] so verse ¹⁸ 46³ (Elohist).
* * * * *
=14‒16. Mother and child in the desert.=――The sufferings and despair of the helpless outcasts are depicted with fine feeling and insight.――=14.= _a skin of water_] חֵמֶת (_v.i._), the usual Eastern water-bag, answering to the of the _ǧirby_ of the modern Bedouin (Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i. 227, ii. 585).――_and the boy he placed on her shoulder_ (_v.i._)] compare ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶.――_the wilderness of Beersheba_ (see on ³¹)] implying that Abraham dwelt _near_, but not necessarily _at_, Beersheba.――=15.= _she cast the boy_ (whom, therefore, she must have been carrying) _under one of the bushes_] for protection from the sun (1 Kings 19⁴ ᶠᐧ). To save Priestly-Code’s chronology, Delitzsch and Strack make _cast_ = ‘eilends niederlegen’――with what advantage does not quite appear.――=16.= _a bowshot off_] out of sight of her child, but within hearing of his cry.――The last clause should be read with LXX; _and the boy lifted up his voice and wept_ (verse ¹⁷): the change of subject being due to the false impression that Ishmael was now a grown lad. Hagar’s dry-eyed despair is a more effective picture than that given by Massoretic Text.
* * * * *
=14.= חמת] Only here (¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁹) = Arabic _ḥamīt_ (√ _ḥamita_, ‘rancid’?). On the forms חֵמַת, חֵ֑מֶת, or חֶ֑מֶת, חֵמֶת, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 _l_.――שם על־ וגו׳] The transposition וְאֶת־הַיִּלֶד שָׂם עַל־שִׁכְמָהּ was suggested by Olshausen, and is by far the best remedy for an awkward construct. In Massoretic Text it would be necessary to take וְאֶת־ה׳ as second object to וַיִּתֵּן, and שם על־שכמה as a parenthetic circumstantial clause (so Dillmann, Delitzsch, Strack). It is an effort to evade the absurdity of a youth of 17 being carried on his mother’s back.――=15.= השיחם] ‘desert shrubs’; see on 2⁵.――=16.= הרחק] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _h_.――כמטחוי קשת] literally ‘as (far as) bowmen do’; LXX ὡσεὶ τόξου βολήν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), hardly imply a different text. On מְטַֽחֲוֵי (participle Palestinian √ טחה,――only here), see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _kk_.――ותשא וגו׳] LXX וַיִּשָּׂא [הַיֶּלֶר] אֶת־קֹלֹה וַיֵּבְךְּ.
* * * * *
=17‒19. The Divine succour= comes in two forms: a voice from heaven (¹⁷ ᶠᐧ), and an opening of Hagar’s eyes (¹⁹).――=17.= _God heard_] (twice) preparing for an explanation of יִשְׁמָעֵאל.――While God Himself hears, the medium of His revelation is _the Angel of God_ (as 28¹² 31¹¹ 32², Exodus 14¹⁹), who by a refinement peculiar to Elohist (22¹¹) speaks _from heaven_. This goes beyond the primary conception of the Angel: see on 16⁷.――=18.= Hagar is encouraged by a disclosure of the future greatness of her son.――=19.= _opened her eyes_] compare 3⁵ᐧ ⁷. The tact of the narrator leaves us in doubt whether the well was now miraculously opened, or had been there all along though unseen. In any case it is henceforth a sacred well.
* * * * *
=17b.= אל־קול] MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ את־קִ׳.――=19.= באר מים] LXX + חַיִּים,――attractive! (compare 26¹⁹).
* * * * *
=20, 21. Ishmael’s career.=――Here we expect the naming of the child, based on verse ¹⁷: this has been omitted by Redactor in favour of Yahwist (16¹¹).――=20.= The boy _grew up_, amidst the perils and hardships of the desert,――a proof that _God was with him_.――_he became a bowman_] (pointing רֹבֶה קַשָּֽׁת: _v.i._), the bow being the weapon of his descendants (Isaiah 21¹⁷).――=21.= The _wilderness of Pārān_ is et-Tīh, bounding the Negeb on the South.――His mother took him a wife _from the land of Egypt_] her own country (verse ⁹): see page 285 above.
_Comparison of chapter 16 with 21¹⁻²¹._――That these two narratives are variations of a common legendary theme is obvious from the identity of the leading motives they embody: viz. the significance of the name Ishmael (16¹¹ 21¹⁷); the mode of life characteristic of his descendants (16¹² 21²⁰); their relation to Israel; and the sacredness of a certain well, consecrated by a theophany (16⁷ᐧ ¹⁴ 21¹⁹).¹ Each tale is an exhaustive expression of these motives, and does not tolerate a supplementary anecdote alongside of it. Chapter 21, however, represents a conception of the incident further removed from primitive conditions than 16: contrast the sympathetic picture of nomadic life in 16¹² with the colourless notice of 21²⁰; in 16, moreover, Hagar is a high-spirited Bedawi woman who will not brook insult, and is at home in the desert; while in 21 she is a household slave who speedily succumbs to the hardships of the wilderness. In Elohist the appeal is to universal human sympathies rather than to the peculiar susceptibilities of the nomad nature; his narrative has a touch of pathos which is absent from Yahwist; it is marked by a greater refinement of moral feeling, and by a less anthropomorphic idea of God.――See the admirable characterisation of Gunkel, page 203 f.
¹ The well is not identified in Elohist. Gunkel’s view, that it was Beersheba, has little to commend it.
* * * * *
=20.= ויהי רבה קשת] ‘and he became, growing up, an archer’; Vulgate _juvenis sagittarius_ (so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ). But קַשָּׁת is ἅπαξ εἰρημένον, the syntax is peculiar, and, besides, the growing up has been already mentioned. The true text is doubtless that given above and implied by LXX ἐγένετο δὲ τοξότης. Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) also implies קֶשֶׁת; but there are further divergences in that Version. רבה = ‘shoot’ (not so elsewhere), might be a by-form of רבב (see on 49²³; and compare רַב = ‘shooter,’ in Jeremiah 50²⁹, Job 16¹³); but it may be a question whether in these three cases we should not substitute רבה for רבב, or whether in this passage we should not read רֹמֵה קֶשֶׁת with Ball (see especially Jeremiah 4²⁹, Psalms 78⁹). The rendering ‘a shooter, an archer’ (Delitzsch), is clumsy; and the idea that קַשָּׁת is an explanatory gloss on רֹבֶה (Kautzsch-Socin) is not probable.
* * * * *
XXI. 22‒34. _Abraham’s Covenant with Abimelech_ (Elohist and Yahwist).
Two distinct narratives, each leading up to a covenant at Beersheba, are here combined. (A) In the first, Abraham, acceding to a request of Abimelech, enters into a covenant of permanent friendship with him, from which the place derives its name ‘Well of the Oath’ (²²⁻²⁴ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³¹).――(B) In the other, the covenant closes a long-standing dispute about springs, and secures the claim of Abraham’s people to the wells of Beersheba, where Abraham subsequently plants a sacred tree (²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³⁰ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³³).
_Sources._――The passage, except some redactional touches in ³²⁻³⁴, has usually been assigned to Elohist (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Dillmann, Holzinger, Strack). Its disjointed character has, however, been felt, and tentative solutions have been proposed by several critics (compare Kautzsch-Socin _Anm._ 92, 93; Kraetzschmar _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 14, 31; von Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 46 f.; _Oxford Hexateuch_ ii. 30 f.). The most successful is that of Gunkel, who assigns ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³⁰ᐧ ³²⁻³⁴ to Yahwist, the rest to Elohist: the reasons will appear in the notes. The analysis rests on the duplicates (²⁷ᵃ ∥ ³⁰ᵃ, ²⁷ᵇ ∥ ³²ᵃ) and material discrepancies of the section; the linguistic criteria being indecisive as between Yahwist and Elohist, though quite decisive against Priestly-Code (חֶסֶד, הֵנָּה, ²³; כָּרַת בְּרִית, ²⁷; בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰). But the connexion with chapter 20, and אֱלֹהִים in ²²ᐧ ²³, prove that the main account is from Elohist; while יהוה, ³³, and בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰, show the other to be Yahwist. Since the scene is Beersheba, the Yahwistic component must be Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ.――³²⁻³⁴ have been considerably modified by Redactors. Procksch (10 ff.) holds that in the original Elohist verses ²² ᶠᶠᐧ preceded ¹⁻²⁰; his detailed analysis being almost identical with Gunkel’s.
=22‒24.= Abimelech proposes an oath of perpetual amity between his people and Abraham’s, and the latter consents (Elohist).――=22.= _Pîkōl_ (_v.i._), _his commander-in-chief_, seems here merely a symbol of the military importance of Gerar: otherwise 26²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where Pîkōl is a party to the covenant.――=23.= _Swear to me here_] in the place afterwards known as Beersheba (³¹). Abraham’s departure from Gerar, and Abimelech’s visit to him in Beersheba, must have stood in Elohist between 20¹⁷ and 21²² (compare 26¹³ᐧ ²⁶).――=24.= This unreserved consent is inconsistent with the expostulation of――=25, 26= (Yahwist), which presupposes strained relations between the parties, and repeated disputes about the ownership of wells. Note (1) the frequentative וְהוֹכִחַ, (2) the plural ‘wells’ (retained by LXX), (3) the fuller parallel of 26¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, which shows that the right to several wells had been contested.――_And as often as Abraham took Abimelech to task about the wells ... Abimelech would answer_]――that he knew nothing of the matter (so Gunkel).――=27.= Continuing ²⁴ (Elohist). Giving (or exchange?) of presents seems to have been customary when a covenant was made (1 Kings 15¹⁹, Isaiah 30⁶, Hosea 12²). The action would be no suitable answer to verse ²⁶.――=28‒30= (Yahwist). _the seven ewe lambs_ are set apart for the purpose explained in ³⁰; but the article shows that they must have been mentioned in the previous context. It is clear from ³⁰ that the lacuna is in Yahwist, not in Elohist; while Abimelech’s question ²⁹ proves that the lambs were not an understood part of the ceremony (Dillmann).――=30.= _that it_ (the acceptance of the present) _may be a witness, etc._] so that in future there may be no quarrel about Beersheba.――=31.= belongs to Elohist: נִשְׁבְּעוּ, compare ²³ ᶠᐧ; שְׁנֵיהֶם, compare ²⁷.――בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע = ‘seven wells,’ is here explained as ‘Well of the Oath,’ the oath being the central feature of the _berîth_. The etymology is not altogether at fault, since נִשְׁבַּֽע may mean literally to ‘put oneself under the influence of seven,’ the sacred number (Herodotus iii. 8; Homer _Iliad_ xix. 243 ff.; Pausanias iii. 20. 9).――=32a.= Yahwist’s parallel to ²⁷ᵇ.¹――=33.= The inauguration of the cult of Beersheba (Yahwist: compare 26²⁵). Among the _sacra_ of that famous shrine there must have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been planted by Abraham (see on 12⁶). The planting of a sacred tree is no more a _contradictio in adjecto_ (Stade in von Gall, 47) than the erecting of a sacred stone, or the digging of a sacred well. The opinion (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the subject is Isaac, and that the verse should stand after 26²⁵, rests on the incorrect assumption that no stratum of Yahwist puts Abraham in connexion with Beersheba.――_’El ‛Ôlâm_] presumably the pre-Israelite name of the local _numen_, here identified with Yahwe (Gunkel: see 16¹³). Canaanite analogies are Ἦλος ὁ καὶ Κρόνος (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10, 13 ff.), and Χρόνος ἀγήρατος (Damascius _Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles_ 123).――=34.= The assumption that Beersheba was in Philistine territory being incompatible with ³²ᵇ, the verse must be an interpolation.――On the historical background of these legends, see after 26³³.
¹ ³²ᵇ would be a natural conclusion to Elohist’s narrative (compare ²²), but for the fact that that source never speaks of a Philistine occupation of Gerar. The last three verses, however, seem to have been altered by a compiler.――It is probable that Yahwist gave an explanation of the name of the well, connecting it with the seven lambs; so Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (בירא דשבע חורפן).
Beersheba is the modern _Bi’r-es-Seba‛_, in the heart of the Negeb, some 28 miles South-west from Hebron, and 25 South-east from _Umm el-Ǧerār_. Its importance as a religious centre in the Old Testament appears not only from its frequent mention in the patriarchal history (22¹⁹ 26²³ ᶠᶠᐧ ³¹ ᶠᶠ 28¹⁰ 46¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), but still more from the fact that in the 8th century its oracle (compare 25²²) was resorted to by pilgrims from the northern kingdom (Amos 5⁵ 8¹⁴). Von Gall (44 ff.) questions the opinion that it was originally a group of 7 wells, holding that there was but one, whose name meant ‘Well of the Oath.’ But that “among the Semites a special sanctity was attached to groups of seven wells” is shown by Smith (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 181 f.: compare Nöldeke _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, vii. 340 ff.); and the existence of a plurality of wells at Bi’r es-Seba‛ has never been disputed. See Robinson _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 204 ff.; Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 284 f.; Robinson, _Biblical World_, xvii. (1901), 247 ff.; Gautier, _ib._ xviii. 49 ff.; Driver _The Expository Times_, vii. (1896), 567 f.; _Joel and Amos_² (1901), page 239 f.; Trumbull, _The Expository Times_, viii. 89.
* * * * *
=22.= ופיכל] LXX prefix καὶ Ὀχοζὰθ ὁ νυμφαγωγὸς αὐτοῦ (from 26²⁶). Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, ix. 109) considers this one of the few Egyptian names in Old Testament = _p{<}Ḫ-r(j)_, “the Syrian.”――=23.= אם] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 149 _c_.――נין ונכד] (_proles et soboles_) an alliterative phrase found in Isaiah 14²², Job 18¹⁹, Sirach 41⁵ 47²²†.――=25.= והוכח] “must be corrected to וַיּוֹכַח” (Ball, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 112 _tt_): _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויוכיח. But Massoretic Text is probably right, with frequent sense of perfect given above. For the following ויאמר (instead of ואמר), see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 114 β.――באר] LXX φρεάτων, _ut sup._――=28.= הצאן] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (which also omits את־) צאן. Delitzsch thinks this one of the few cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 _e_) where article determines only its own word, and not the whole expression.――=29.= Read הכבשת with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (³⁰).――לבדָּֽנָה (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ לבדהן)]. On suffix compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 _f_. The form is chiefly pausal; and though the only other example in Pentateuch (Genesis 42³⁶) is Elohist, 30⁴¹ (־ֶנָּה) is Yahwist, and the form cannot be considered distinctive of Elohist.――=31.= באר שבע] LXX Φρέαρ ὁρκισμοῦ, but in ³² Φρέατι τοῦ ὅρκου. The construction (number in genitive after singular noun) has been supposed by Stade to be Canaanite idiom (compare קִרְיַת אַרְבַּֽע, 23²).――=33.= אֵשֶׁל] Arabic _’aṯl_, Aramaic אתלא, Assyrian _ašlu_; 1 Samuel 22⁶ 31¹³ [in 1 Chronicles 10¹² אֵלָה]†, in both cases probably denoting a _sacred_ tree. The word seems to have been strange to versions: LXX ἄρουραν, Aquila δενδρῶνα, Symmachus φυτείαν, Vulgate _nemus_, etc. The substitution of אֲשֵׁרָה proposed by Stade (_v.s._) is uncalled for, though see _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4892 f.――עולם] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ העולם.――=34= is wanting in Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (edited by Ginsburger).
* * * * *