CHAPTER XXIV.
_Procuring a Wife for Isaac_ (Yahwist, [Elohist?]).
Abraham on his death-bed (see below) solemnly charges his house-steward with the duty of procuring a wife for Isaac amongst his Mesopotamian relatives (¹⁻⁹). The servant is providentially guided to the house of Nāḥôr, in whose daughter (see on verse ¹⁵) Rebekah he is led to recognise the divinely appointed bride for Isaac (¹⁰⁻⁴⁹). Having obtained the consent of the relatives, and of the maiden herself (⁵⁰⁻⁶¹), he brings her to Canaan, where Isaac marries her (⁶²⁻⁶⁷).
The chapter is one of the most perfect specimens of descriptive writing that the Book of Genesis contains. It is marked by idyllic grace and simplicity, picturesque elaboration of scenes and incidents, and a certain ‘epic’ amplitude of treatment, seen in the repetition of the story in the form of a speech (see Driver 230). These artistic elements so predominate that the primary ethnographic motive is completely submerged. It may be conjectured that the basis of the narrative was a reinforcement of the Aramæan element in the Hebrew stock, as in the kindred story of Jacob and his wives (see Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 39 f.). But if such a historical kernel existed, it is quite lost sight of in the graphic delineation of human character, and of ancient Eastern life, which is to us the main interest of the passage. We must also note the profoundly religious conception of Yahwe’s providence as an unseen power, overruling events in answer to prayer. All these features seem to indicate a somewhat advanced phase in the development of the patriarchal tradition. The chapter belongs to the literary type most fully represented in the Joseph-narrative (compare Gunkel 220).
_Source and Unity of the Narrative._――From the general character of the style, and the consistent use of the name יהוה, critical opinion has been practically unanimous in assigning the whole chapter to Yahwist. It is admitted, however, that certain ‘unevennesses of representation’ occur; and the question arises whether these are to be explained by accidental dislocations of the text, or by the interweaving of two parallel recensions. Thus, the servant’s objection that the maiden may not be willing to follow him (⁵ᐧ ³⁹), is met by Abraham in two ways: on the one hand by the confident assurance that this will not happen (⁷ᐧ ⁴⁰), and on the other by absolving him from his oath if his mission should miscarry (⁸ᐧ ⁴¹). In ²⁹ ᶠᐧ Laban _twice_ goes out to the man at the well (²⁹ᵇ ∥ ³⁰ᵇ); ²⁸ speaks of the _mother’s_ house, ²³ᵇ of the _father’s_: in ⁵⁰ the servant negotiates with _Laban and Bethuel_, in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ with the _brother and mother_ of the bride; in ⁵¹ the request is at once agreed to by the _relatives_ without regard to Rebekah’s wish, whereas in ⁵⁷ ᶠᐧ the decision is left to _herself_; in ⁵⁹ Rebekah is sent away with her _nurse_, in ⁶¹ᵃ she takes her own _maidens_ with her; her departure is _twice_ recorded (⁶¹ᵃ ∥ ⁶¹ᵇ). These doublets and variants are too numerous to be readily accounted for either by transpositions of the text (Dillmann al.) or by divergences in the _oral_ tradition (_Students’ Old Testament_, 96); and although no complete analysis is here attempted, the presence of two narratives must be recognised. That one of these is Yahwist is quite certain; but it is to be observed that the characteristically Yahwistic expressions are somewhat sparsely distributed, and leave an ample margin of neutral ground for critical ingenuity to sift out the variants between two recensions.¹ The problem has been attacked with great acuteness and skill by Gunkel (215‒221) and Procksch (14 f.), though with very discordant results. I agree with Procksch that the second component is in all probability Elohist, mainly on the ground that a fusion of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ and Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (Gunkel) is without parallel, whereas Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ and Elohist are combined in chapter 21. The stylistic criteria are, indeed, too indecisive to permit of a definite conclusion; but the parallels instanced above can easily be arranged in two series, one of which is free from positive marks of Yahwist; while, in the other, everything is consistent with the supposition that Abraham’s residence is Beersheba (see page 241 above).
¹ יהוה, ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁰ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵⁰ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²ᐧ ⁵⁶; ארם נהרים, ¹⁰ (against Priestly-Code’s פדן ארם); ארצי ומולדתי, ⁴ (12¹); בא בימים ¹ (see on 18¹¹); טבת מראה, ¹⁶ (26⁷, compare 12¹¹); ידע, ¹⁶ (see on 4¹); יש with suffix and participle ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁹; טרם, ¹⁵ᐧ ⁴⁵; הצליח, ²¹ᐧ ⁴⁰ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁵⁶ (39²ᐧ ³ᐧ ²³); הקרה, ¹² (27²⁰); רוץ לקראת, ¹⁷ (see 18²); נא, ²ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²³ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴³ᐧ ⁴⁵.
_The Death of Abraham._――It is impossible to escape the impression that in verses ¹⁻⁹ Abraham is very near his end, and that in ⁶²⁻⁶⁷ his death is presupposed. It follows that the account of the event in Jehovist must have occurred in this chapter, and been suppressed by the Redactor in favour of that of Priestly-Code (25 ⁷⁻¹¹), according to which Abraham survived the marriage of Isaac by some 35 years (compare 25²⁰). The only question is whether it happened before or after the departure of the servant. Except in ¹⁴ᵇ{α}, the servant invariably speaks as if his master were still alive (compare ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᵇ{β}ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³⁷ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁴ᵇᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵⁴ᐧ ⁵⁶). In ⁶⁵, on other hand, he seems to be aware, before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is no more. There is here a slight diversity of representation, which may be due to the composition of sources. Gunkel supposes that in the document to which ¹⁴ᵇ{α}ᐧ ³⁶ᵇ and ⁶⁵ belong (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ), the death was recorded after ⁹ (and related by the servant after ⁴¹); while in the other (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) it was first noticed in connexion with the servant’s meeting with Isaac (before ⁶⁶). Procksch thinks Elohist’s notice followed verse ⁹, but doubts whether Abraham’s death was presupposed by Yahwist’s account of the servant’s return.――Verse ³⁶ᵇ is thought to point _back_ to 25⁵; and hence some critics (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, Dillmann, al.) suppose that 25¹⁻⁶ ⁽¹¹ᵇ⁾ originally preceded chapter 24; while others (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel) find a more suitable place for 25⁵ (with or without ¹¹ᵇ) between 24¹ and 24². See, further, on 25 ¹⁻⁶ below.
=1‒9. The servant’s commission.=――=1.= _had blessed, etc._] His life as recorded is, indeed, one of unclouded prosperity.――=2.= _the oldest_ (_i.e._ senior in rank) _servant, etc._] who, in default of an heir, would have succeeded to the property (15² ᶠᐧ), and still acts as the trusted guardian of the family interests; compare the position of Ziba in 2 Samuel 9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 16¹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――_put thy hand, etc._] Only again 47²⁹)――another death-bed scene! It is, in fact, only the imminence of death that can account for the action here: had Abraham expected to live, a simple command would have sufficed (Gunkel).
The reference is to an oath by the genital organs, as emblems of the life-giving power of deity,――a survival of primitive religion whose significance had probably been forgotten in the time of the narrator. Traces have been found in various parts of the world: see Ewald _Antiquities of Israel_ 19⁶ [English translation]; Dillmann 301; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 395; and especially the striking Australian parallel cited by Spurreil (²218) from Sir G. Grey.¹ By Jewish writers it was considered an appeal to the covenant of circumcision (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_, Rashi; so Tuch, Delitzsch). Abraham Ibn Ezra explains it as a symbol of subjection, (adding that it was still a custom in India); Ewald, Dillmann, Holzinger, al. as invoking posterity (יֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ, 46²⁶, Exodus 1⁵, Judges 8³⁰) to maintain the sanctity of the oath.
¹ “One native remains seated on the ground with his heels tucked under him...; the one who is about to narrate a death to him approaches ... and seats himself cross-legged upon the thighs of the other; ... and the one who is seated uppermost _places his hands under the thighs of his friend_; ... an inviolable pledge to avenge the death has by this ceremony passed between the two.”
=3.= _God of heaven and of earth_] an expression for the divine omnipresence in keeping with the spiritual idea of God’s providence which pervades the narrative. The full phrase is not again found (see verse ⁷).――_thou shalt not take, etc._] The motive is a natural concern for the purity of the stock: see Bertholet, _Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden_ 67.――=5‒8.= The servant’s fear is not that he may fail to find a bride for Isaac, but that the woman may refuse to be separated so far from her kindred: would the oath bind him in that event to take Isaac back to Ḥarran? The suggestion elicits from the dying patriarch a last utterance of his unclouded faith in God.――=7.= _God of heaven_] _v.i._――_send his Angel_] compare Exodus 23²⁰ᐧ ²³ 33², Numbers 20¹⁶. The Angel is here an invisible presence, almost a personification of God’s providence; contrast the older conception in 16⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ.
* * * * *
=3.= לבני] LXX + Ἰσαάκ (as verse ⁴); so verse ⁷.――=4.= כי] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ כי אם.――At the end LXX, Vulgate add מִשָּׁם as verse ⁷.――=5.= אָבָה] always with negative, except Isaiah 1¹⁹, Job 39⁹ (Sirach 6³³).――=7.= אלהי השמים] appears only in late books (Jonah 1⁹, 2 Chronicles 36²³ = Ezra 1², Nehemiah 1⁴ ᶠᐧ 2⁴ᐧ ²⁰: אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא is frequent in Aramaic parts of Ezra and Daniel). The words are wanting in one Hebrew MS (see Kittel), and may be deleted as a gloss. Otherwise we must add with LXX ואלהי הארץ (compare ³).――ואשר נשבע לי] probably interpolated by a later hand (Dillmann); see page 284 above.――=8.= אחריך] LXX + εἰς τὴν γῆν ταύτην.――לא תשב (but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ תשיב)] jussive with לֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 _d_.
* * * * *
=10‒14. The servant at the well.=――On the fidelity of the picture to Eastern life, see Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, i. 261.――=10.= _ten camels_] to bring home the bride and her attendants (⁶¹). But “such an expedition would not now be undertaken ... with any other animals, nor with a less number.”――_goodly things_] for presents to the bride and her relations (²²ᐧ ⁵³).――On _’Aram Naharaim_, see the footnote.――_the city of Nāḥôr_ in Yahwist would be Ḥarran (compare 27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴): but the phrase is probably an Elohistic variant to _’Aram Naharaim_, in which case a much less distant locality may be referred to (see on 29¹).――=12‒14.= The servant’s prayer. The request for a sign is illustrated by Judges 6³⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 14⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ: note הִנֵּה אָֽנֹכִי [אֲנַחְנוּ] in all three cases. A spontaneous offer to draw for the camels would (if Thomson’s experience be typical) be unusual,――in any case the mark of a kind and obliging disposition.――=13.= _the daughters ... to draw water_] compare 1 Samuel 9¹¹.
* * * * *
=10.= Unless we admit a duality of sources, it will be necessary to omit the first וַיֵּלֶךְ (with LXX).――וכל־] better וּמִכָּל־ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå).――ארם נהרים] Deuteronomy 23⁵, Judges 3⁸, Psalms 60², 1 Chronicles 19⁶†. Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ארם דעל פרת. The identity of the second element with Egyptian _Naharin_, Tel-Amarna Tablets _Naḫrima_ (79¹⁴ [rev.], 181³⁴, 119³²) is beyond dispute; but it is perhaps too readily assumed that geographically the expressions correspond. The Egyptian Naharin extended from East of the Euphrates to the valley of the Orontes (_Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 249 ff.); all that can be certainly affirmed about the biblical term is that it embraced _both_ sides of the Euphrates (Ḥarran on the East; Pethor on the West [Deuteronomy 23⁵]). Since there is no trace of a dual in the Egyptian and Canaanite forms, it is doubtful if the Hebrew ending be anything but a Massoretic caprice (read נהרִים?), or a locative termination, to be read _-ām_ (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 45¹; Meyer, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, iii. 307 f.: compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 88 _c_, and Strack page 135 f. with reff.). There would in this last case be no need to find a _second_ river (Tigris, Chaboras, Baliḫ, Orontes, etc.) to go with Euphrates. The old identification with the Greek Mesopotamia must apparently be abandoned. See, further, Dillmann 302; Moore, _Judges_ 87, 89; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 28 f.――=12.= הקרה] ‘make it occur,’ 27²⁰ (Yahwist).――=14.= הַֽנַּעֲרָ֯] Ḳrê. הנערה; so verses ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ⁵⁵ᐧ ⁵⁷ 34³ᐧ ¹², Deuteronomy 22¹⁵ ᶠᐧ ²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²³⁻²⁹. הנערה is found as Ke. in Pentateuch only Deuteronomy 22¹⁹, but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads so throughout. It is hazardous to postulate an archaic epicene use of נַעַר on such restricted evidence: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 655 a; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 17 _c_.――אשקה] LXX + ἕως ἂν παύσωνται πίνουσαι.――הֹכַחְתָּ] _decide_, _adjudicate_, here = ‘allot’; so only verse ⁴⁴. Contrast 20¹⁶ 21²⁵ 31³⁷ᐧ ⁴²† (Elohist), Leviticus 19¹⁷† (Priestly- Code).――ובה] ‘and thereby’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 _p_.
* * * * *
=15‒27. The servant and Rebekah.=――=15.= _who was born to Bethuel, etc._] compare ²⁴ᐧ ⁴⁷.
The somewhat awkward phrasing has led Dillmann al. to surmise that all these verses have been glossed, and that here the original text ran אֲשֶׁר יָֽלְדָה מִלְכָּה וגו׳, Rebekah being the daughter of Milkah and Nāḥôr. Compare 29⁵, where Laban is described as the son of Nāḥôr. The redactional insertion of Bethû’ēl would be explained by the divergent tradition of Priestly-Code (25²⁰ 28²ᐧ ⁵), in which Bethû’ēl is simply an ‘Aramæan,’ and not connected with Nāḥôr at all (see Budde 421 ff.). The question can hardly be decided (Holzinger 168); but there is a considerable probability that the original Yahwist made Laban and Rebekah the children of Nāḥôr. In that case, however, it will be necessary to assume that the tradition represented by Priestly-Code was known to the Yahwistic school before the final redaction, and caused a remodelling of the genealogy of 22²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ (see page 333). Compare, however, Bosse, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1908, 2, page 8 f.
* * * * *
=15.= After טרם read יְכַלֶּה (compare ⁴⁵); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 _c_.――_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate inserts אֶל־לִבּוֹ after לְדַבֵּר (⁴⁵).
* * * * *
=16.= Taking no notice of the stranger, the maiden _went down to the fountain_ (עַיִן) ... _and came up_] In Eastern wells the water is frequently reached by steps: contrast Exodus 2¹⁶ (וַתִּדְלֶנָה), John 4¹¹.――=19, 20.= The writer lingers over the scene, with evident delight in the alert and gracious actions of the damsel.――=21.= The servant meanwhile has stood _gazing at her in silence_, watching the ample fulfilment of the sign.――=22.= The _nose-ring_ and _bracelets_ are not the bridal gift (Gunkel), but a reward for the service rendered, intended to excite interest in the stranger, and secure the goodwill of the maiden. See Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ ii. 320, 323; compare _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 453².――=23‒25.= In the twofold question and answer, there is perhaps a trace of the composition of narratives; _v.i._――=24.= See on ¹⁵. Read _the daughter of Milkah whom she bore to Nāḥôr_ (as 34¹).――=26, 27.= The servant’s act of worship marks the close of the scene.
* * * * *
=18= end] LXX + ἕως ἐπαύσατο πίνων, omitting the first two words of verse ¹⁹.――=20.= השקת] _the_ stone trough for watering animals, found at every well (30³⁸, compare 30⁴¹, Exodus 2¹⁶).――=21.= משתאה] not ‘wondering’ (√ שׁאה; so Delitzsch), but ‘gazing’ (by-form of √ שעה) as Isaiah 41¹⁰. Construct state before preposition: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 130 _a_.――=22.= משקלו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + וישם על אפה, a necessary addition (compare ⁴⁷). נֶזֶם accordingly is here a ‘nose-jewel’ (Isaiah 3²¹, Proverbs 11²²), in 35⁴, Exodus 32²ᐧ ³ (Elohist) an earring.――בקע] = ½ shekel (Exodus 38²⁶).――=23‒25.= The theory of two recensions derives some little support from the repeated ותאמר אליו of ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵. A mere rearrangement such as Ball proposes (²³ᵃᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²³ᵇᐧ ²⁵) only cures one anomaly by creating another; and is, besides, impossible if the amendment given above for verse ²⁴ be accepted.――=25.= ללון] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ללין, as verse ²³; but infinitive elsewhere is always לוּן.――=27.= אנכי emphasises the following accusative suffix (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 143 _b_, 135 _d_, _e_). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) implies perhaps כִּי אִם (Ball) or כִּי (Kittel); if not a mistake for (‡ Syriac word).――אחי] Point אֲחִי (singular) with versions.
* * * * *
=28‒32. Laban’s hospitality= is inspired by the selfish greed for which that worthy was noted in tradition.――=28.= _her mother’s house_ cannot mean merely the female side of the family (Dillmann), for Laban belongs to it, and ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ imply that the father (whether Bethuel or Nāḥôr) is not the head of the house. Some find in the notice a relic of matriarchy (Holzinger, Gunkel); but the only necessary inference is that the father was dead.――=31.= _seeing I have cleared the house_] turning part of it into a stable.――=32.= _he_ (Laban) _brought the man in (v.i.) ... and ungirt the camels_] without removing the pack-saddles.¹――_to wash his feet, etc._] compare 18⁴.
¹ “The camel is very delicate, and could easily catch a chill if the saddle were taken away imprudently; and on no account can the camel stay out of doors in bad weather. It is then taken into the house, part of which is turned into a stable” (Baldensperger, _Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements_, 1904, 130).
* * * * *
=28.= אִמָּהּ] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (wrongly).――=30.= כראותו (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) is better than Massoretic Text כראת.――והנה עמד] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 _s_; Davidson § 100 (_a_).――=31.= פִּנִּיתִי] ‘cleared away,’ as Leviticus 14³⁶, Isaiah 40³ etc.; compare Arabic √ _fanaʸ_ IV. = _effecit ut dispareret_.――=32.= וַיָּבֵא] (Vulgate) avoids an awkward change of subject, and is to be preferred (Olshausen, Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel). The objection (Dillmann al.) that this would require to be followed by אֶת־ is answered by the very next clause. Irregularity in the use of אָת־ is a puzzling phenomenon in the chapter, which unfortunately fits in with no workable scheme of documentary analysis.
* * * * *
=33‒49. The servant’s narrative.=――A recapitulation of the story up to this point, with intentional variations of language, and with some abridgment. LXX frequently accommodates the text to what has gone before, but its readings need not be considered.――=35.= Compare 12¹⁶ 13².――=36b.= _has given him all that he had_] This is the only material addition to the narrative. But the notice is identical with 25⁵, and probably points back to it in some earlier context (see page 341 above).――=40.= _before whom I have walked_] Compare 17¹. Gunkel’s suggested alteration: ‘who has gone before me,’ is an unauthorised and unnecessary addition to the _Tikkûnê Sōpherîm_ (see 18²²).――=41.= אָלָה (_bis_) for שְׁבוּעָה, verse ⁸. On the connexion of _oath_ and _curse_, see Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 192 f.――=45‒47.= Greatly abbreviated from ¹⁵⁻²⁵.――_the daughter of [Bethû’ēl the son of Nāḥôr; etc._] see on ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁴.――=48.= _daughter of my master’s brother_] ‘Brother,’ may, of course, stand for ‘relative’ or ‘nephew’ (29¹²ᐧ ¹⁵); but if Bethuel be interpolated in ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ⁴⁷, Rebekah was actually first cousin to Isaac, and such marriages were considered the most eligible by the Naḥorites (29¹⁹).――=49.= _that I may turn, etc._] not to seek a bride elsewhere (Dillmann), but generally ‘that I may know how to act.’
* * * * *
=33.= וַיּיּשַׂם֯] Ḳrê and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויושם (Hophal √ שׂום), LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיָּשֶׂם. But Kethîb recurs in Massoretic Text of 50²⁶ (וַיִּישֶׂם), again with passive significance. The anomalous form may be passive of Qal (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 73 _f_), or metaplastic Niphal from ישׂם or ושׂם (Nöldeke, _Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_ 39 f.).――ויאמר²] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיֹּאמְרוּ, which is perhaps better.――=36.= זקנתה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX זִקְנָתוֹ.――=38.= אִם לֹא never has the sense of Aramaic אֶלָּא (_sondern_), and must be taken as the common form of adjuration (Delitzsch), _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (_London Polyglott_) has כי אם.――=41.= מאלתי] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 _n_.――The verse contains a slight redundancy (ᵃ{α} ∥ ᵇ{β}), but nothing is gained by interposing a clause between ᵃ{β} and ᵇ{α} (Kautzsch-Socin).――=46.= מעליה] LXX ἐπὶ τὸν βραχίονα αὐτῆς ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς (conflate?); Vulgate _de humero_ (compare ¹⁸).
* * * * *
=50‒61. Departure of Rebekah, with the consent and blessing of her relatives.=――=50.= The relatives, recognising the hand of Providence in the servant’s experiences, decline to answer _bad or good_: i.e., anything whatever, as 31²⁴ᐧ ²⁹, Numbers 24¹³ etc.
The verse as a whole yields a perfectly good sense: ‘_we_ cannot speak, because _Yahwe_ has decided’; and ⁵¹ is a natural sequel. It is a serious flaw in Gunkel’s analysis of ⁵⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, that he has to break up ⁵⁰, connecting מִיהוה יָצָא הַדָּבָר with ⁵¹, and the rest of the verse with ⁵⁷ ᶠᐧ (‘_we_ cannot speak: let the _maiden_ decide’).――On the other hand, לָבָן וּבְתוּאֵל in ⁵⁰ is barely consistent with אָחִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵. Since the mention of the father after the brother would in any case be surprising, Dillmann al. suppose that here again ובתואל is an interpolation; Kittel reads וּבֵתוֹ, and Holzinger substitutes וּמִלְכָּה. Gunkel (219) considers that in this recension Bethuel is a younger brother of Laban.
=51.= Here, at all events, the matter is settled in accordance with custom, without consulting the bride.――=53.= The presents are given partly to the bride and partly to her relatives. In the latter we may have a _survival_ of the מֹהַר (34¹², Exodus 22¹⁶, 1 Samuel 18²⁵†) or purchase-price of a wife; but Gunkel rightly observes that the narrative springs from a more refined idea of marriage, from which the notion of actual purchase has all but disappeared. So in Islam _mahr_ and _ṣadaḳ_ (the gift to the wife) have come to be synonymous terms for dowry (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 93, 96): compare Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 106.――=55.= The reluctance to part with Rebekah is another indication of refined feeling (Gunkel). On יָמִים אוֹ עָשׂוֹר, _v.i._――=56.= The servant’s eagerness to be gone arises from the hope of finding his old master still alive.――=57, 58.= The question here put to Rebekah is not whether she will go now or wait a few days, but whether she will go at all. The reference to the wishes of the bride may be exceptional (owing to the distance, etc.); but a discrepancy with ⁵¹ cannot easily be got rid of.――=59.= _their sister_] compare ‘your daughter,’ 34⁸, the relation to the family being determined by that to the head of the house. But it is better to read אַחֶיהָ (plural) in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ with Vulgate, Peshiṭtå and MSS of LXX.――_her nurse_] see on 35⁸.――=60.= The blessing on the marriage (compare Ruth 4¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ)), rhythmic in form, is perhaps an ancient fragment of tribal poetry associated with the name of Rebekah.――_possess the gate_] as 22¹⁷.――=61a= and =61b= seem to be variants. For another solution (Kautzsch-Socin), see on ⁶².――_her maidens_] parallel to ‘her nurse’ in ⁵⁹.
* * * * *
=53.= מגדנת (Ezra 1⁶, 2 Chronicles 21³ 32²³†)] ‘costly gifts,’ from √ מגד, Arabic _maǧada_ = ‘be noble.’――=55.= וְאָחִיהָ] LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאַחֶיהָ; and so Peshiṭtå, Vulgate and many Greek cursives in ⁵³.――ימים או עשור] ‘a few days, say ten,’ is a fairly satisfying rendering (LXX ἡμέρας ὡσεὶ δέκα); ‘a year or ten months’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Rashi) is hardly admissible. But the text seems uncertain: _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ימים או חדש; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) (compare 29¹⁴). In deference to _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå we may insert חֹדֶשׁ before יָמִים: ‘a month or at least ten days’ (Olshausen, Ball).――תֵּלֵךְ] probably 3rd feminine (so all Versions).――=59.= מנקתה] LXX τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῆς = מִקְנָתָהּ, a word of Priestly-Code.――=60.= אַתְּ is appositional vocative, not subject to אֲחֹתֵנוּ (_soror nostra es_, Vulgate).――הֲיִי] with abnormal ־ֲ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 63 _q_).――שנאיו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ איביו, as 22¹⁷.
* * * * *
=62‒67. The home-bringing of Rebekah.=――=62.= _Now Isaac had come ..._] What follows is hardly intelligible. The most probable sense is that during the servant’s absence Isaac had removed to Beer-laḥai-roi, and that near that well the meeting took place.
The difficulty lies partly in the corrupt מִבּוֹא (_v.i._), partly in the circumstantial form of the sentence, and partly in the unexplained disappearance of Abraham. Keeping these points in mind, the most conservative exegesis is that of Delitzsch: Isaac (supposed to be living with his father at Beersheba) ‘was coming _from a walk in the direction of_ Beersheba’, when he met the camels; this, however, makes וַיֵּצֵא (⁶³) pluperfect, which is hardly right. More recent writers proceed on the assumption that the death of Abraham had been explicitly recorded. Holzinger suggests that Isaac had removed to Laḥairoi during his father’s life (transposing 25¹¹ᵇ before 24²), and that now he comes _from_ that place (reads מִמִּדְבַּֽר) on hearing of Abraham’s death. Dillmann reads ⁶²ᵃ ויבא[יצחק] אל מדבר ב׳, and finds in these words the notice of Isaac’s migration _to_ Beersheba.――Kautzsch-Socin, reading as Dillmann, but making the servant implicit subject of ויבא, puts the chief hiatus between ⁶¹ᵃ and ⁶¹ᵇ: the servant on his return learned that Abraham was dead; then (⁶¹ᵇ) took Rebekah and went further; and (⁶²ᵃ) came to Laḥairoi.――Gunkel (operating with two sources) considers ⁶² the immediate sequel to ⁶¹ᵃ in the document where Abraham’s death preceded the servant’s departure, so that nothing remained to be chronicled but Isaac’s removal to Laḥairoi (reads מְבוֹא, ‘to the entrance of’). This solution is attractive, and could perhaps be carried through independently of his division of sources. For even if the death followed the departure, it might very well have been recorded in the early part of the chapter (after ¹⁰).
* * * * *
=62.= מִבּוֹא] cannot be infinitive construct with מִן; the French _il vint d’arriver_ (Hupfeld 29) has no analogy in Hebrew idiom. Nor can it readily be supposed equivalent to מִלְּבוֹא (1 Kings 8⁶⁵; Delitzsch _v.s._); for the _direction_ in which Isaac took his walk is an utterly irrelevant circumstance, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX (διὰ τῆς ἐρήμου) read במדבר, from which a fairly suitable text (מִדְבַּֽר or מִמּ׳) could be obtained (compare Dillmann and Holzinger _s._). Gunkel’s מְבוֹא (as accusative of direction) has no parallel except the very remote one of מבואת ים, Ezekiel 27³ (of the situation of Tyre). Other suggestions are to delete the word as an uncorrected lapse of the pen; to read מִבְּאֵר with omission of the following בְּאֵר (Lagarde, Procksch); to substitute מבא[רשׁבע] (‘from Beersheba to’: Ball).――באר לחי ראי] LXX (here and 25¹¹) τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ὁράσεως, omitting לחי; refer to page 289 above.
* * * * *
=63.= לָשׂוּחַ] a word of uncertain meaning, possibly _to roam_ (_v.i._).――_toward the approach of evening_] (Deuteronomy 23¹²), when the Oriental walks abroad (compare 3⁸).――_camels were coming_] In the distance he cannot discern them as his own.――=64.= At the sight of a stranger Rebekah dismounts (נָפַל as 2 Kings 5²¹), a mark of respect still observed in the East (_The Land and the Book_, i. 762; Seetzen, _Reisen_, iii. 190); compare Joshua 15¹⁸, 1 Samuel 25²³.――=65.= _It is my master_] Apparently the servant is aware, before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is dead.――The putting on of the _veil_ (compare _nubere viro_), the survival of a primitive marriage taboo, is part of the wedding ceremony (see Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵, i. 217 f.).――=67.= _brought her into the tent_] The next phrase (שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ) violates a fundamental rule of syntax, and must be deleted as a gloss. Isaac’s own tent is referred to. This is the essential feature of the marriage ceremony in the East (see Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 108 f.).――_comforted himself after_ [the death of] _his mother_] It is conjectured (Wellhausen al.) that the real reading was ‘his father,’ whose death had recently taken place. The change would naturally suggest itself after Yahwist’s account of the death of Abraham had been suppressed in accordance with Priestly-Code’s chronology. The death of Sarah is likewise unrecorded by Yahwist or Elohist.
* * * * *
=63.= לָשׂוּחַ] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον commonly identified with שֵׁיחַ = ‘muse,’ ‘complain,’ ‘talk,’ etc.; so LXX (ἀδολεσχῆσαι), Aquila (ὁμιλῆσαι), Symmachus (λαλῆσαι), Vulgate (_ad meditandum_: so Tuch, Delitzsch), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (לצלאה: Rashi); Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, al. think the sense of ‘mourning’ (for his father) most probable; but? Abraham Ibn Ezra (‘to walk among the shrubs’) and Böttcher (‘to gather brushwood’) derive from שֵׁיחַ (21¹⁵). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) is thought to rest on a reading לָשׁוּט (adopted by Gesenius al.), but is rather a conjecture. Nöldeke (_Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_ 43 f.) suggests a connexion with Arabic _sāḥa_ = ‘stroll’ (point לָשׁוּחַ).――הגמלים of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ is wrong (_v.s._).――=65.= הַלָּזֶה] 37¹⁹†; _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ הלז.――הצעיף] 38¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹† (Yahwist). On the article compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _s_. After Lagarde’s brilliant note (_Semitica_ 23 ff.), it can scarcely be doubted that the word denotes a large double square wrapper or shawl, of any material.――=67.= ויבאה] LXX εἰσῆλθεν δέ.――האהלה שרה] article with construct is violently ungrammatical; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 _f_.――For אִמּוֹ² read מוֹת אָבִיו (Kittel) _v.s._
* * * * *
XXV. 1‒6. _The Sons of Ḳeṭurah_ (Yahwist? Redactor?).
The Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites acknowledged a looser kinship than with the Ishmaelites or Edomites are here represented as the offspring of Abraham by a second marriage (compare 1 Chronicles 1³² ᶠᐧ).
The names Midian, Sheba, Dedan (see below) show that these Ḳeṭurean peoples must be sought in North Arabia, and in the tract of country partly assigned to the Ishmaelites in verse ¹⁸. The fact that in Judges 8²⁴ Midianites are classed as Ishmaelites (compare Genesis 37²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) points to some confusion between the two groups, which in the absence of a Yahwistic genealogy of Ishmael it is impossible altogether to clear up. Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 29¹) has dropped a hint that Ḳeṭurah may be but a traditional variant of Hagar;¹ Holzinger conjectures that the names in ²⁻⁴ are taken from Yahwist’s lost Ishmaelite genealogy; and Kent (_Students’ Old Testament_, i. 101) thinks it not improbable that Ḳeṭurah was originally the wife of Ishmael. Glaser (ii. 450) considers the Ḳeṭureans remains of the ancient Minæan people, and not essentially different from the Ishmaelites and Edomites. See, further, on verse ¹⁸ below.
¹ So Jewish interpreters: Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, _Bereshith Rabba_, Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_, Rashi (but not Abraham Ibn Ezra).
_Source._――(a) The genealogy (¹⁻⁴) contains slight traces of Yahwist in יָלַר, ³; כָּל־אֵלָּה בְּנֵי ⁴ (compare 10²⁹ 9¹⁹); Priestly-Code is excluded by ילד, and the discrepancy with 10⁷ as to Sheba and Dedan; while Elohist appears not to have contained any genealogies at all. The verses must therefore be assigned to some Yahwistic source, in spite of the different origin given for Sheba in 10²⁸.――(b) The section as a whole cannot, however, belong to the primary Yahwistic document; because there the death of Abraham had already been recorded in chapter 24, and 24³⁶ refers _back_ to 25⁵.¹ We must conclude that 25¹⁻⁶ is the work of a compiler, who has incorporated the genealogy, and taken verse ⁵ from its original position (see on 24³⁶) to bring it into connexion with Abraham’s death. These changes may have been made in a revised edition of Yahwist (so Gunkel); but in this case we must suppose that the account of Abraham’s death was also transferred from chapter 24, to be afterwards replaced by the notice of Priestly-Code. It seems to me easier (in view of ¹¹ᵇ and ¹⁸) to hold that the adjustments were effected during the final redaction of the Pentateuch, in accordance with the chronological scheme of Priestly-Code.
¹ The mere transposition of 25¹⁻⁶ before chapter 24 (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, al.) does not fully meet the difficulty, there being, in fact, no suitable place for a second marriage of Abraham anywhere in the original Yahwist (Holzinger).
=1.= _Ḳĕṭûrāh_, called a ‘concubine’ in 1 Chronicles 1³² (compare verse ⁶ below), is here a _wife_, the death of Sarah being presupposed. The name occurs nowhere else, and is probably fictitious, though Arabian genealogists speak of a tribe _Ḳaṭūra_ in the vicinity of Mecca (Knobel-Dillmann). There is no ‘absurdity’ (Delitzsch) in the suggestion that it may contain an allusion to the traffic in incense (קְטוֹרָה) which passed through these regions (see Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 313).――=2‒4.= The Ḳeṭurean stock is divided into 6 (LXX 7) main branches, of which only one, Midian, attained historic importance. The minor groups number 10 (LXX 12), including the well-known names Sheba and Dedan.
=2.= זִמְרָן (Ζεβράν, Ζομβράν, etc.) has been connected with the Ζαβράμ [Ζαδραμ?] of Ptolemy vi. 7. 5, West of Mecca (Knobel); and with the _Zamareni_ of Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, vi. 158, in the interior; but these are probably too far South. The name is probably derived from זֶמֶר = ‘wild goat,’ the ending _ān_ (which is common in the Ḳeṭurean and Ḥorite lists and rare elsewhere) being apparently gentilic: compare זִמְרִי, Numbers 25¹⁴, 1 Chronicles 2⁶ 8³⁶ 9⁴². A connexion with זִמְרִי (Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word)), Jeremiah 25²⁵ is very doubtful. On יָקְשָׁן (Ἰεξάν, Ἱεκτάν, etc.) see on verse ³――מְדָן (Μαδαίμ)] unknown. Wetzstein instances a Wādī Medān near the ruins of Daidan.――מִדְיָן (Μαδιάμ)] The name appears as Μοδίανα = Μαδιαμα in Ptolemy vi. 7. 2, 27 (compare Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ ii. 257; Eusebius _Onomasticon_, page 276), the _Madyan_ of Arab geography, a town on the East side of the Gulf of Aḳaba, opposite the South end of the Sinaitic peninsula (see Nöldeke _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3081). The chief seat of this great tribe or nation must therefore have been in the northern Ḥiǧāz, whence roving bands ravaged the territory of Moab, Edom (Genesis 36³⁵), and Israel (Judges 6‒8). The mention of Midianites in the neighbourhood of Horeb may be due to a confusion between Yahwist and Elohist (see Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 3 f.); and after the time of the Judges they practically disappear from history. “As to their occupations, we sometimes find them described as peaceful shepherds, sometimes as merchants [Genesis 37²⁸ᐧ ³⁶, Isaiah 60⁶], sometimes as roving warriors, delighting to raid the more settled districts” (Nöldeke).――יִשְׁבָּק and שׁוּחַ have been identified by Friedrich Delitzsch (_Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung_, ii. 91 f., _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 297 f.) and Glaser (ii. 445 f.), with _Yasbuḳ_ and _Sûḫu_ of Assyrian monuments (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 159, 33, 99, 101), both regions of northern Syria. Delitzsch has since abandoned the latter identification (_Hiob_, 139) for phonetic reasons.――=3.= שְׁבָא and דְּדָן] see on 10⁷. As they are there bracketed under רַֽעֲמָה, so here under יָקְשָׁן, a name otherwise unknown. The equation with יָקְטָן (10²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ), proposed by Tuch and accepted by Meyer (318), is phonologically difficult. Since the Sabæans are here still in the North, it would seem that this genealogy goes farther back than that of the Yokṭanite Arabs in chapter 10. Between Sheba and Dedan, LXX inserts Θαιμάν (= תֵימָא, verse ¹⁵).――=3b.= The sons of Dedan are wanting in 1 Chronicles, and are probably interpolated here (note the plural). LXX has in addition Ραγουὴλ (compare 36¹⁰) καὶ Ναβδεήλ (compare verse ¹³).――אַשּׁוּרִם] certainly not the Assyrians (אַשּׁוּר), but some obscure North Arabian tribe,――_possibly_ the אאשר mentioned on two Minæan inscriptions along with מצר (Egypt), עבר נהרן, and Gaza (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 248 f., 252 f., _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 297 ff.; Glaser, ii. 455 ff.; Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 28 f.; König, _Fünf Landschaften_, 9: compare, on the other side, Meyer _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi. 327 ff., _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 320 ff.).――לְטוּשִׁם] The personal name לטשו (as also אשורו) has been found in Nabatean inscriptions; see Levy, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xiv. 403 f., 447, 477 f., where attention is called to the prevalence of craftsmen’s names in these inscriptions, and a connexion of ל׳ with לֹטֵשׁ in 4²² is suggested.――=4.= Five sons of Midian.――עֵיפָה is named along with Midian in Isaiah 60⁶ as a trading tribe. It has been identified with the _Ḫayapa_ (= עֲיָפָה?) mentioned by Tiglath-pileser IV. and Sargon, along with some 6 other rebellious Arab tribes (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 21, 43): see Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 304, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 58.――With עֵפֶר, Wetzstein compares the modern _‛Ofr_ (Dillmann); Glaser (449), Assyrian _Apparu_ (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 223).――חֲנֹךְ] Perhaps _Hanākiya_ near _‛Ofr_ (Knobel-Dillmann).――It is noteworthy that these three names――עיפה, 1 Chronicles 2⁴⁶ ᶠᐧ; עפר, 1 Chronicles 4¹⁷ 5²⁴; חנך, Genesis 46⁹, Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers 26⁵, 1 Chronicles 5³――are found in the Hebrew tribes most exposed to contact with Midian (Judah, Manasseh, Reuben). Does this show an incorporation of Midianite clans in Israel? (Nöldeke).――אֲבִידָע (_‛Abî-yada‛a_) and אֶלְדָּעָה (_’Il- yeda‛_ and _Yeda-’il_) are personal names in Sabæan, the former being borne by several kings (_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxvii. 648, xxxvii. 399; Glasser ii. 449).
=5.= See on 24³⁶.――=6.= The exodus of the _Bnê Ḳedem_ (composed by a redactor).――_the concubines_] apparently Hagar and Ḳeṭurah, though neither bears that opprobrious epithet in Genesis: in 16³ Hagar is even called אִשָּׁה. Moreover, Ishmael and his mother, according to Yahwist and Elohist, had long been separated from Abraham.――_sent them away from off Isaac_] so as not to be a burden upon him. Compare Judges 11².――_eastward to the land of Ḳedem_] the Syro-Arabian desert.
So we must render, unless (with Gunkel) we are to take the two phrases קֵדְמָה and אֶל־אֶרֶץ קֶדֶם as variants. But קֶדֶם in Old Testament is often a definite geographical expression, denoting the region East and South-east of the Dead Sea (compare 29¹, Numbers 23⁷, Judges 6³ᐧ ³³ 7¹² 8¹⁰, Isaiah 11¹⁴, Jeremiah 49²⁸, Ezekiel 25⁴ᐧ ¹⁰, Job 1³); and although its appellative significance could, of course, not be forgotten, it has almost the force of a proper name. It is so used in the Egyptian romance of Sinuhe (_circa_ 1900 B.C.): see Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 46 f.; Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, 52 ff.; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 243 f.
* * * * *
=5= end] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå + בְּנוֹ.――=6.= פִּילֶגֶשׁ (see on 22²⁴) is used of שִׁפְחָה in 35²².――אשר לאברהם] LXX αὐτοῦ.
* * * * *
XXV. 7‒11. _The Death and Burial of Abraham_ (Priestly-Code).
⁷⁻¹¹ᵃ are the continuation of 23²⁰ in Priestly-Code. Note the characteristic phrases: יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי, ⁷; גָּוַע, בְּשֶׁיבָה טוֹבָה, נֶֽאֱסַף אֶל־עַמָּיו ⁸; אֱלֹהִים, ¹¹ᵃ; the chronology ⁷, the reminiscences of chapter 23, and the backward reference in 49³¹.――¹¹ᵇ belongs to Yahwist.
=8.= _gathered to his kindred_ (see on 17¹⁴)] Originally, this and similar phrases (15¹⁵ 47³⁰, Deuteronomy 31¹⁶ etc.) denoted burial in the family sepulchre; but the popular conception of Sheôl as a vast aggregate of graves in the under world enabled the language to be applied to men who (like Abraham) were buried far from their ancestors.――_Isaac and Ishmael_] The expulsion of Ishmael is consistently ignored by Priestly-Code.――=11a.= Transition to the history of Isaac (25¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ).
¹¹ᵇ (like verse ⁵) has been torn from its context in Yahwist, where it may have stood after 24¹ 25⁵, or (more probably) after the notice of Abraham’s death (compare 24⁶²). Meyer (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 253, 323) makes the improbable conjecture that the statement referred originally to Ishmael, and formed, along with verse ¹⁸, the conclusion of