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――Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ, Elohist, Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ. 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 ᶠᶠᐧ 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 21²⁵ ᶠᐧ.――=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 21²⁵ ᶠᐧ) ascribed the discovery and naming of them to Abraham. Verses ¹⁵ᐧ 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 3¹⁹ᐧ ²⁵, 2 Chronicles 32³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ 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, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ 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 12⁷ ᶠᐧ 13⁴ᐧ 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 ᶠᐧ: the consecration of the sanctuary and the naming of the place are separate things which were evidently kept distinct in Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (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 16¹⁶ ᶠᐧ, 1 Kings 4⁵, 1 Chronicles 27³³).――_Pîkōl_] see on 21²².――=27.= See verses ¹⁴ᐧ 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 15¹⁷ ᶠᐧ).――=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 31⁵³ ᶠᐧ), 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 (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) 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 Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ 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 Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ 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 14¹¹ᐧ ²⁰ 15²ᐧ 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 10²ᐧ ⁶ ᶠᐧ†) 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 (‡ Syriac word) (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 36² ᶠᐧ.

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 Testaments_² 34‒36): (a) ³³ᐧ 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 ¹¹⁻¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ ∥ ¹⁵: in the one case Jacob is disguised by the skin of the kids, in the other by wearing Esau’s clothes.――(d) ³⁰ᵃ{α} ∥ ³⁰ᵇ{β}.――(e) ⁴⁴ᵇ ∥ ⁴⁵ᵃ{α} (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, 35³ᐧ 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 ¹¹⁻¹³ᐧ 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 (³³ᐧ ²⁷) Isaac is ignorant who it is that has personated Esau, whereas in Elohist (³⁵ᐧ 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 ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ 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 (48¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 50²⁴ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 33, Joshua 23, 2 Samuel 23¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Kings 2¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 2 Kings 13¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=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 10⁵ ᶠᐧ, 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 22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ 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, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Abraham Ibn Ezra) than of the ‘sword’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, 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 Semites_², 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 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ).――=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 (‡ Syriac word) (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 ¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᵃᐧ ²¹⁻²³ᐧ ²⁸ = Elohist ∥ ¹⁹ᵇᐧ ²⁰ᐧ 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 ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ 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 (²⁷ᵇᐧ 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 49²² ᶠᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 33¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ; 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 2⁸ᐧ 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). ²⁹ᵃ{α} (to לאמים‎) is Yahwist because of the last word (25²³); and ²⁹ᵇ because of the resemblance to 12³. ²⁹ᵃ{β} (from הוה‎) is Elohist (compare ³⁷): (so Gunkel). Kautzsch-Socin and Holzinger differ first in treating ²⁹ᵃ{β}ᵇ as wholly ∥ ²⁹ᵃ{α}, thus assigning ²⁹ᵃ{α} to Elohist and ᵃ{β} 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, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ 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 ²⁹ᵃ{β}ᐧ 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 8²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), 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 28²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ 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 ᶠᶠᐧ 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 (∥ ³⁸ᵃ{α}) 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׳‎] LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ 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, ²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷; פָּרָה וְרָבָה‎, ³; אֶרֶץ מְגֻרִים‎ ⁴; בְּנוֹת כְּנַעַן‎ ¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ (Yahwist בּ׳ הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי‎, 24³ᐧ 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